This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Background A valid, reliable, accessible, engaging, and affordable digital cognitive screen instrument for clinical use is in urgent demand. Objective To assess the clinical utility of the MemTrax memory test for early detection of cognitive impairment in a Chinese cohort. Methods The 2.5-minute MemTrax and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were performed by 50 clinically diagnosed cognitively normal (CON), 50 mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI-AD), and 50 Alzheimer's disease (AD) volunteer participants. The percentage of correct responses (MTx-% C), the mean response time (MTx-RT), and the composite scores (MTx-Cp) of MemTrax and the MoCA scores were comparatively analyzed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves generated. Results Multivariate linear regression analyses indicated MTx-% C, MTx-Cp, and the MoCA score were significantly lower in MCI-AD versus CON and in AD versus MCI-AD groups (all with p≤0.001). For the differentiation of MCI-AD from CON, an optimized MTx-% C cutoff of 81% had 72% sensitivity and 84% specificity with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.839, whereas the MoCA score of 23 had 54% sensitivity and 86% specificity with an AUC of 0.740. For the differentiation of AD from MCI-AD, MTx-Cp of 43.0 had 70% sensitivity and 82% specificity with an AUC of 0.799, whereas the MoCA score of 20 had 84% sensitivity and 62% specificity with an AUC of 0.767. Conclusion MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Liu, X., Chen, X., Zhou, X., Shang, Y., Xu, F., Zhang, J., et al. (2021). Validity of the MemTrax Memory Test Compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease in a Chinese Cohort. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200936

Vancouver

Liu X, Chen X, Zhou X, Shang Y, Xu F, Zhang J, et al. Validity of the MemTrax Memory Test Compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease in a Chinese Cohort. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-200936. PMID: 33646151.

BibTeX

@article{liu2021-33646151,
  author  = {Liu, X. and Chen, X. and Zhou, X. and Shang, Y. and Xu, F. and Zhang, J. and He, J. and Zhao, F. and others},
  title   = {{Validity of the MemTrax Memory Test Compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease in a Chinese Cohort}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-200936},
  pmid    = {33646151},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200936}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Results Multivariate linear regression analyses indicated MTx-% C, MTx-Cp, and the MoCA score were significantly lower in MCI-AD versus CON and in AD versus MCI-AD groups (all with p≤0.001).
Conclusion MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort.

Study details

Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33646151)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “computerized”

238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →