Digital Clock and Recall: a digital, process-driven evolution of the Mini-Cog
IF 4.6
Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Joyce Gomes-Osman, Soo Borson, Claudio Toro-Serey, Russell Banks, Marissa Ciesla, Ali Jannati, W. Isaiah Morrow, Rod Swenson, David Libon, David Bates, John Showalter, Sean Tobyne, Alvaro Pascual-Leone
求助PDF
{"title":"Digital Clock and Recall: a digital, process-driven evolution of the Mini-Cog","authors":"Joyce Gomes-Osman, Soo Borson, Claudio Toro-Serey, Russell Banks, Marissa Ciesla, Ali Jannati, W. Isaiah Morrow, Rod Swenson, David Libon, David Bates, John Showalter, Sean Tobyne, Alvaro Pascual-Leone","doi":"10.3389/fnhum.2024.1337851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionAlzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) represent a substantial global public health challenge with multifaceted impacts on individuals, families, and healthcare systems. Brief cognitive screening tools such as the Mini-Cog© can help improve recognition of ADRD in clinical practice, but widespread adoption continues to lag. We compared the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR), a next-generation process-driven adaptation of the Mini-Cog, with the original paper-and-pencil version in a well-characterized clinical trial sample.MethodsDCR was administered to 828 participants in the Bio-Hermes-001 clinical trial (age median ± SD = 72 ± 6.7, IQR = 11; 58% female) independently classified as cognitively unimpaired (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 364) or as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI, <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 274) or dementia likely due to AD (DLAD, <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 190). MCI and DLAD cohorts were combined into a single impaired group for analysis. Two experienced neuropsychologists rated verbal recall accuracy and digitally drawn clocks using the original Mini-Cog scoring rules. Inter-rater reliability of Mini-Cog scores was computed for a subset of the data (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 508) and concordance between Mini-Cog rule-based and DCR scoring was calculated.ResultsInter-rater reliability of Mini-Cog scoring was good to excellent, but Rater 2’s scores were significantly higher than Rater 1’s due to variation in clock scores (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001). Mini-Cog and DCR scores were significantly correlated (<jats:italic>τ</jats:italic><jats:sub>B</jats:sub> = 0.71, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001). However, using a Mini-Cog cut score of 4, the DCR identified more cases of cognitive impairment (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 47; <jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 13.26, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0005) and Mini-Cog missed significantly more cases of cognitive impairment (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 87). In addition, the DCR correctly classified significantly more cognitively impaired cases missed by the Mini-Cog (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 44) than vice versa (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4; <jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 21.69, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001).DiscussionOur findings demonstrate higher sensitivity of the DCR, an automated, process-driven, and process-based digital adaptation of the Mini-Cog. Digital metrics capture clock drawing dynamics and increase detection of diagnosed cognitive impairment in a clinical trial cohort of older individuals.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1337851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
Abstract
IntroductionAlzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) represent a substantial global public health challenge with multifaceted impacts on individuals, families, and healthcare systems. Brief cognitive screening tools such as the Mini-Cog© can help improve recognition of ADRD in clinical practice, but widespread adoption continues to lag. We compared the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR), a next-generation process-driven adaptation of the Mini-Cog, with the original paper-and-pencil version in a well-characterized clinical trial sample.MethodsDCR was administered to 828 participants in the Bio-Hermes-001 clinical trial (age median ± SD = 72 ± 6.7, IQR = 11; 58% female) independently classified as cognitively unimpaired (n = 364) or as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 274) or dementia likely due to AD (DLAD, n = 190). MCI and DLAD cohorts were combined into a single impaired group for analysis. Two experienced neuropsychologists rated verbal recall accuracy and digitally drawn clocks using the original Mini-Cog scoring rules. Inter-rater reliability of Mini-Cog scores was computed for a subset of the data (n = 508) and concordance between Mini-Cog rule-based and DCR scoring was calculated.ResultsInter-rater reliability of Mini-Cog scoring was good to excellent, but Rater 2’s scores were significantly higher than Rater 1’s due to variation in clock scores (p < 0.0001). Mini-Cog and DCR scores were significantly correlated (τ B = 0.71, p < 0.0001). However, using a Mini-Cog cut score of 4, the DCR identified more cases of cognitive impairment (n = 47; χ 2 = 13.26, p < 0.0005) and Mini-Cog missed significantly more cases of cognitive impairment (n = 87). In addition, the DCR correctly classified significantly more cognitively impaired cases missed by the Mini-Cog (n = 44) than vice versa (n = 4; χ 2 = 21.69, p < 0.0001).DiscussionOur findings demonstrate higher sensitivity of the DCR, an automated, process-driven, and process-based digital adaptation of the Mini-Cog. Digital metrics capture clock drawing dynamics and increase detection of diagnosed cognitive impairment in a clinical trial cohort of older individuals.
数字时钟和回忆:迷你慢动作的数字、过程驱动进化版
导言阿尔茨海默病及相关痴呆症(ADRD)是全球公共卫生面临的重大挑战,对个人、家庭和医疗保健系统造成多方面的影响。简易认知筛查工具(如 Mini-Cog©)有助于在临床实践中提高对 ADRD 的识别能力,但其广泛应用仍然滞后。我们在一个具有良好特征的临床试验样本中比较了数字时钟和回忆(DCR)--一种下一代过程驱动的迷你Cog改编版--和原始的纸笔版。方法 对参加 Bio-Hermes-001 临床试验的 828 名参与者(年龄中位数 ± SD = 72 ± 6.7,IQR = 11;58% 为女性)进行了 DCR 测试,这些参与者被独立归类为认知功能未受损者(364 人)或轻度认知功能受损者(MCI,274 人)或可能因注意力缺失导致的痴呆者(DLAD,190 人)。MCI 组和 DLAD 组合并为一个受损组进行分析。两位经验丰富的神经心理学家采用最初的 Mini-Cog 评分规则对言语回忆的准确性和数字时钟进行评分。对部分数据(n = 508)计算了Mini-Cog评分的评分者间可靠性,并计算了基于Mini-Cog规则的评分与DCR评分之间的一致性。结果Mini-Cog评分的评分者间可靠性为良好至优秀,但由于时钟评分的差异,评分者2的评分明显高于评分者1(p <0.0001)。迷你慢动作和 DCR 分数有明显的相关性(τB = 0.71,pamp &;lt;0.0001)。然而,如果将 Mini-Cog 的切分分值定为 4 分,DCR 能识别出更多的认知障碍病例(n = 47;χ2 = 13.26,p &;lt; 0.0005),而 Mini-Cog 则明显遗漏了更多的认知障碍病例(n = 87)。讨论我们的研究结果表明了 DCR 的灵敏度更高,DCR 是对 Mini-Cog 的自动、过程驱动和基于过程的数字改编。数字指标能捕捉到时钟绘制的动态变化,并能提高对老年人临床试验队列中诊断出的认知障碍的检测率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。