ArticleDementia and neurocognitive disorders2024
Development of the Diagnostic Matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test, Compared to Traditional Paper-and-Pencil Neuropsychological Tests.
Article in Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ecological and Embodied Assessment of Inhibitory Control Using a VR Stroop Task in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Liver-metabolic stress, apolipoprotein E ε4, and cognition and amyloid burden: findings from the dementia platform Korea trial-ready registry.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Tablet-Based Seoul Cognitive Status Test: Evidence for Scalable Cognitive Assessment.Dementia and neurocognitive disorders · 2025Article
- Feasibility and construct validity evaluation of remote neuropsychological testing using the K-eRBANS: a preliminary single group prospective observational study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD-K). Methods: We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results: The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.
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.