ArticlePloS one2019
Distinguishing mild cognitive impairment from healthy aging and Alzheimer's Disease: The contribution of the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS).
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early cognitive screening for individuals on the dementia continuum: A novel approach amid current trends.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Review
- Exploring the Impact of Age of Onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment on the Profile of Cognitive and Psychiatric Symptoms.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Machine Learning Approach for Early Diagnosis of Cognitive Impairment Using Population-Based Data.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
- Unveiling Trail Making Test: visual and manual trajectories indexing multiple executive processes.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Socioeconomic status impacts cognitive and socioemotional processes in healthy ageing.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Higher-Level Executive Functions in Healthy Elderly and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Semantic Memory and Lexical Availability in Parkinson's Disease: A Statistical Learning Study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
- Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of the INECO Frontal Screening and the Frontal Assessment Battery in mild cognitive impairment.Dementia & neuropsychologiaArticle
- Utility of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale and INECO Frontal Screening for differentiating dementia subtypes between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
- Identification of Dementia & Mild Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Elderly Using Machine Learning.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementiasArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Executive functions are affected differently in healthy aging, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and evaluating them is important for differential diagnosis. The INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) is a brief neuropsychological screening tool, developed to assess executive dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders. GOALS: We aimed to examine whether and how MCI patients can be differentiated from cognitively healthy controls (HC) and mild to moderate AD patients based on IFS performance. We also explored how IFS scores are associated with age, years of education, and depressive/anxious symptoms (as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale).
methodIFS total scores were compared between 26 HC, 32 MCI and 21 mild to moderate AD patients. The three groups were matched for age and education. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was analyzed and optimal cut-offs were determined.
resultsHealthy participants had higher IFS scores than both clinical groups, and MCI patients had higher scores than AD patients. IFS showed high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of MCI (AUC = .89, p < .001) and AD (AUC = .99, p < .001), and for the differentiation between the clinical groups (AUC = .76, p < .001). We provide optimal cut-offs for the identification of MCI and AD and for their differentiation. We also found that, in general, higher education predicted higher IFS scores (no associations with age and depressive/anxious symptoms were observed). Altogether, these findings indicate that evaluating executive functions with the IFS can be valuable for the identification of MCI, a high-risk group for dementia, and for differentiating this condition from healthy aging and AD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.