ArticleAge and ageing2025
A mobile interactive cognitive self-assessment scale for screening cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stage-Wise IoT Solutions for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review of Detection, Monitoring, and Assistive Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Areas of research priorities in epilepsy: A position paper of the European Reference Network for Rare and Complex Epilepsies, EpiCARE.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA mobile cognition scale for community screening in cognitive impairment with rigorous validation is in paucity. We aimed to develop a digital scale that overcame low education for community screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD.
methodsA mobile cognitive self-assessment scale (CogSAS) was designed through the Delphi process, which is feasible for the older population with low education. In Phase 1, 518 clinically diagnosed participants were subjected to optimise the items. In Phase 2, the scale was validated in 358 participants with cognitively unimpaired and 396 participants of clinically diagnosed MCI and dementia for reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy. In Phase 3, specificity and sensitivity were tested for biologically diagnosed participants of 38 with cognitively unimpaired and 45 with MCI and dementia due to AD according to the amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration classification system.
resultsThe CogSAS was a three-task mobile scale testing memory and executive function. In Phase 2, the internal consistency was 0.81, and the test-retest reliability was 0.82. The construct validity was 0.74, and the criterion validity was 0.77. The sensitivity and specificity for discriminating clinically diagnosed participants with MCI and dementia from cognitively unimpaired were 0.90 and 0.67, respectively. For discriminating biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to AD from cognitively unimpaired, the sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 and 0.78, respectively.
conclusionsThe CogSAS has good reliability, validity and feasibility, showing a high sensitivity and specificity both in the community and the clinic, identifying biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to 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.