ArticlePsychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society2025
Identification of Hasegawa Dementia Scale-Revised Cutoff Scores Associated With Mini-Mental State Examination Thresholds for Anti-Amyloid β Therapies in Patients With Amnesia.
Article in Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identification of Hasegawa Dementia Scale-Revised Cutoff Scores Associated With Mini-Mental State Examination Thresholds for Anti-Amyloid β Therapies in Patients With Amnesia.Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate Hasegawa Dementia Scale-Revised (HDS-R) cutoff scores that correspond to Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) thresholds for identifying candidates for anti-amyloid β (Aβ) therapies. Additionally, we conducted exploratory analyses to examine the cognitive subdomains associated with Aβ status.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included consecutive patients with amnesia who underwent neuropsychological examinations and Aβ assessment through cerebrospinal fluid analysis or positron emission tomography. Diagnostic accuracy for MMSE thresholds (≥ 20, ≥ 22 and ≥ 24) was assessed, and two HDS-R cutoffs (high-sensitivity, high-specificity) were determined for each threshold. We examined differences in cognitive subdomains between Aβ-positive and Aβ-negative patients with MMSE score ≥ 20.
resultsOf 234 patients, 143 (61.1%) were Aβ-positive. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting MMSE score ≥ 20, ≥ 22 and ≥ 24 was 0.92, 0.90 and 0.91, respectively. High-sensitivity cutoffs, defined as scores that maximised specificity while maintaining sensitivity ≥ 80%, were HDS-R score ≥ 16, ≥ 17 and ≥ 18. Conversely, high-specificity cutoffs, defined as scores that maximised sensitivity while maintaining specificity ≥ 80%, were HDS-R score ≥ 19, ≥ 20 and ≥ 21, respectively. Subdomain analysis of MMSE and HDS-R showed Aβ-positive patients had lower scores in delayed recall and higher scores in calculation than Aβ-negative patients (all p < 0.01). In HDS-R subdomains, visual memory scores were also lower in Aβ-positive patients than in Aβ-negative patients (p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe identified HDS-R cutoff scores were associated with MMSE-defined cognitive thresholds and may serve as a potential reference for identifying patients who could be eligible for anti-Aβ therapies. The cognitive profile observed in Aβ-positive patients was characterised by deficits in delayed recall and in visual memory and by relatively preserved calculation ability, suggesting a selective vulnerability pattern in early Alzheimer's disease.
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.