ArticleDementia and neurocognitive disorders2026
Concordance Between Subtest-Based and Domain Score-Based Determinations of Cognitive Impairment on the SNSB-II.
Article in Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2026. 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.
- Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol modulates amyloid-related entorhinal vulnerability and episodic memory performance in older adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Clinicians typically use 2 methods to determine impairment in a specific cognitive domain based on the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery, 2nd Edition: (1) identifying impairment when one or more subtests fall below the normal range (< mean -1.5 standard deviation), and (2) using the cognitive domain score. Because agreement between these methods may differ by the severity of cognitive impairment, this study examined their concordance in the overall sample and across Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) levels. Methods: A total of 1,086 patients (age 74.27±9.62 years; education 9.07±4.77 years) were included. Concordance between subtest-based and domain score-based classifications was assessed for each cognitive domain using cross-tabulation analyses and Cohen's kappa statistics. To assess the influence of the severity of cognitive impairment, analyses were conducted across CDR levels. Results: When impairment was defined as having at least one abnormal subtest, concordance rates were 90.8% for Attention, 88.8% for Language, 84.6% for Visuospatial Function, 74.3% for Memory, and 73.6% for Frontal/Executive Function. In the Frontal/Executive Function domain, requiring 2 or more abnormal subtests increased concordance to 90.9%. CDR subgroup analyses showed that Memory concordance was particularly low in the CDR 0.5 group (65.8%) compared with the CDR 1 (85.5%) and CDR 2 (98.5%) groups. Conclusions: Concordance between the 2 classification methods was moderately high for Attention, Language, and Visuospatial Function but substantially lower for Memory and Frontal/Executive Function, especially in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. These findings highlight the need to consider both subtest-level performance and domain scores when determining impairment in memory or frontal/executive function.
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.