Performance of the Brain Health Test-7, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting subjects with mild cognitive impairment.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Yi-Ting Lin, Pei-Ning Wang, Jiahn-Jyh Chen, Cheng-Sheng Chen, Chih-Cheng Hsu, Tzung-Jeng Hwang
{"title":"Performance of the Brain Health Test-7, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting subjects with mild cognitive impairment.","authors":"Yi-Ting Lin, Pei-Ning Wang, Jiahn-Jyh Chen, Cheng-Sheng Chen, Chih-Cheng Hsu, Tzung-Jeng Hwang","doi":"10.1016/j.inpsyc.2025.100077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Brain Health Test-7 (BHT-7), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are valid dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) screening tools. Relevant validation studies have usually used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis or a fixed-threshold approach. In this study, we adopted stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis to capture more information about their performance in detecting MCI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional multi-site study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Hospitals in northern and southern Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>1090 subjects aged 50 years or older were assigned to a cognitively normal group, an MCI group, or a dementia group.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>BHT-7, MMSE, and MoCA to differentiate cognitively normal subjects from those with MCI or dementia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three cognitive assessment tools were valid for detecting subjects with MCI or dementia according to ROC analysis. The overall area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the BHT-7 was significantly higher than that of the MoCA and MMSE in differentiating MCI or dementia from controls. Five strata were generated by SSLR analysis for the BHT-7 and MoCA, while 4 for the MMSE. The five strata of the BHT-7 and MoCA well represented the different degrees of probabilities of having MCI. However, it was still difficult to rule out the presence of MCI even by a test score within the highest-score stratum of the MMSE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BHT-7 performed slightly better than MoCA and MMSE in detecting subjects with MCI. The strata generated from the SSLR analysis were more informative than single cutoff values.</p>","PeriodicalId":14368,"journal":{"name":"International psychogeriatrics","volume":" ","pages":"100077"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International psychogeriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpsyc.2025.100077","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The Brain Health Test-7 (BHT-7), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are valid dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) screening tools. Relevant validation studies have usually used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis or a fixed-threshold approach. In this study, we adopted stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis to capture more information about their performance in detecting MCI.

Design: Cross-sectional multi-site study.

Setting: Hospitals in northern and southern Taiwan.

Participants: 1090 subjects aged 50 years or older were assigned to a cognitively normal group, an MCI group, or a dementia group.

Measurements: BHT-7, MMSE, and MoCA to differentiate cognitively normal subjects from those with MCI or dementia.

Results: The three cognitive assessment tools were valid for detecting subjects with MCI or dementia according to ROC analysis. The overall area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the BHT-7 was significantly higher than that of the MoCA and MMSE in differentiating MCI or dementia from controls. Five strata were generated by SSLR analysis for the BHT-7 and MoCA, while 4 for the MMSE. The five strata of the BHT-7 and MoCA well represented the different degrees of probabilities of having MCI. However, it was still difficult to rule out the presence of MCI even by a test score within the highest-score stratum of the MMSE.

Conclusions: The BHT-7 performed slightly better than MoCA and MMSE in detecting subjects with MCI. The strata generated from the SSLR analysis were more informative than single cutoff values.

脑健康测试-7、迷你精神状态检查和蒙特利尔认知评估对轻度认知障碍受试者的检测效果
目的:脑健康测试-7 (BHT-7)、迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)是有效的痴呆和轻度认知障碍(MCI)筛查工具。相关的验证研究通常采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析或固定阈值法。在本研究中,我们采用了层特异性似然比(SSLR)分析来获取更多关于它们在检测MCI方面表现的信息。设计:横断面多地点研究。地点:台湾北部和南部的医院。参与者:1090名年龄在50岁以上的受试者被分为认知正常组、轻度认知障碍组和痴呆组。测量:BHT-7, MMSE和MoCA以区分认知正常受试者与MCI或痴呆患者。结果:经ROC分析,三种认知评估工具对MCI或痴呆的检测均有效。BHT-7的ROC曲线下总面积(AUC)明显高于MoCA和MMSE对MCI或痴呆与对照组的区分。BHT-7和MoCA通过SSLR分析生成了5层,MMSE则生成了4层。BHT-7和MoCA的5个地层很好地代表了不同程度的MCI发生概率。然而,即使是在MMSE中得分最高的阶层中,也很难排除MCI的存在。结论:BHT-7对轻度认知损伤的检测效果略优于MoCA和MMSE。由SSLR分析生成的地层比单一的截止值更具信息量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International psychogeriatrics
International psychogeriatrics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: A highly respected, multidisciplinary journal, International Psychogeriatrics publishes high quality original research papers in the field of psychogeriatrics. The journal aims to be the leading peer reviewed journal dealing with all aspects of the mental health of older people throughout the world. Circulated to over 1,000 members of the International Psychogeriatric Association, International Psychogeriatrics also features important editorials, provocative debates, literature reviews, book reviews and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信