ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel algorithms & blood-based biomarkers: Dementia detection and care transitions for persons living with dementia in the emergency department.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Interpretable machine learning models for predicting cognitive impairment using NHANES neuropsychological tests: nutritional and sociodemographic associations.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCognitive impairment is now recognized as an impending public health crisis. About one-third of adults are concerned about their cognition, and the prevalence of objective cognitive impairment is much higher among those with neurological disorders. Existing screening tools are narrowly focused on detecting dementia in older adults and must be clinician-administered and scored, making them impractical for many neurology practices. This study examined the utility of a brief, self-administered, computerized cognitive screening tool, the Brief Assessment of Cognitive Health (BACH), in identifying cognitive impairment in adults.
methods912 adults (ages 18-84) completed BACH and a neuropsychological battery. Multivariable models were developed to provide a BACH index score reflecting the probability of cognitive impairment for individual patients. Predictive accuracy was compared to that of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a subset of 160 older adults from a Memory Disorders clinic.
resultsThe final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77). Compared to MoCA, BACH had superior predictive accuracy in identifying older patients with cognitive impairment (c = 0·79 vs. 0·67) as well as differentiating those with MCI or dementia from those without cognitive impairment (c = 0·86 vs. c = 0·67).
conclusionsResults suggest that cognitive impairment can be identified in adults using a brief, self-administered, automated cognitive screening tool, and BACH provides several advantages over existing screeners: self-administered; automatic scoring; immediate results in health record; easily interpretable score; utility in wide range of patients; and flags for treatable factors that may contribute to cognitive complaints (i.e., depression, sleep problems, and stress).
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.