ArticleBMC neurology2022
Validation of a novel computerized cognitive function test for the rapid detection of mild cognitive impairment.
Article in BMC neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MicroRNAs signatures as potential molecular markers in mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- A Speech-Based Mobile Screening Tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Technical Performance and User Engagement Evaluation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validation of an Application-Based Cognitive Screening Test for Older Thai Adults.Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders · 2025Article
- The Potential of Automated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using Non-Neuroimaging Data: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the present study, we examined the distinguishing ability of a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment tool for rapid screening using a computer (MARC) for Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD), MCI, and non-demented controls (NDC) with no cognitive impairment, as well as its validity and reliability, as part of a preliminary trial for the development of the tool.
methodsA total of 64 participants (23 in the ADD group, 17 in the MCI group, and 24 in the NDC group) were analyzed. The participants were administered MARC and a pre-existing computerized Alzheimer's dementia screening test (MSP), and 31 participants (14 in the MCI group, 17 in the NDC group) were readministered MARC within 4 months from the first test.
resultsThe median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) when comparing the NDC and MCI groups was 0.866 (95% CI, 0.759-0.974), when comparing the NDC and AD groups was 0.989 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000), and when comparing the MCI and AD groups was 0.889 (95% CI, 0.790-0.988). Furthermore, there was a significant correlation with the results of the existing test, MSP (r = 0.839, p < 0.001). In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (1,1) when the first and second MARC scores were compared was 0.740 (95% CI, 0.529-0.865; p < 0.001).
conclusionsMARC is considered capable of distinguishing MCI with high accuracy. The tool has good validity and reliability, and it can be administered in a short period of time without the need for a specialist.
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.