Trial reportWorld journal of psychiatry2025
Development and validation of screening tools for motoric cognitive risk syndrome in community settings.
Trial report in World journal of psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMotoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome represents an "ultra-early" stage of dementia prevention, highlighting the need for effective screening tools.
aimTo develop and validate a novel tool for MCR identification, comparing its effectiveness with existing methods.
methodsAs part of a community study on healthy aging, a cross-sectional study recruited 1189 Chinese participants aged 50 years and older between May 1, 2022, and March 15, 2023. The cohort was randomly split into training (70%) and testing (30%) datasets. Relevant features were selected for logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT) models using the training dataset, and their performance was subsequently assessed using the testing dataset to validate reliability and generalizability.
resultsThe prevalence of MCR was 13.12% among 1189 participants. DT models had the area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.834 and 0.821 for training and testing datasets, respectively, while LR models indicated AUCs of 0.840 and 0.859. Non-inferiority tests confirmed the DT model's comparable effectiveness to the LR models in predicting MCR. Both models demonstrated good calibration and clinical utility. Seven modifiable risk factors were identified: Age, education level, social engagement, physical activity, nutritional status, depressive symptoms, and purpose in life. Notably, social engagement emerged as a novel factor compared to those previously identified. Both models are integrated into an easy-to-use, interpretable web-based user interface.
conclusionThe interactive, web-based user interface of both models effectively identifies MCR, with the DT model recommended for its simplicity and interpretability, supporting community nurses and clinicians in triaging MCR.
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.