Gait speed as a superior screening indicator for mild cognitive impairment compared to walk ratio and dual-task cost: a cross-sectional study.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Xiaoqin Wang, Jiani Wu, Qi Tian, Xintong Liu, Weihua Yu, Yang Lü
{"title":"Gait speed as a superior screening indicator for mild cognitive impairment compared to walk ratio and dual-task cost: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Xiaoqin Wang, Jiani Wu, Qi Tian, Xintong Liu, Weihua Yu, Yang Lü","doi":"10.1007/s41999-025-01243-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The accurate and sensitive quantitative indicator for screening patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has not yet been established.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our study involved the measurement and comparison of clinical features and gait indicators among 96 patients with MCI, 66 patients with SCD, and 50 individuals with normal cognition (NC). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, multiple logistic regression, correlation clustering heatmap plot, and random forest modeling were used to evaluate the ability of gait indicators to differentiate disease.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed in gait parameters between control and SCD groups [dual-task cost (DTC): p = 0.579; single-task gait speed: p = 0.656; dual gait speed: p = 0.951; single-task walk ratio: p = 0.683; dual-task walk ratio: p = 0.657]. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed no distinct clustering patterns between these groups. For MCI discrimination, gait speed showed moderate predictive value (control vs. MCI: single-task AUC = 0.725, dual-task AUC = 0.726; SCD vs. MCI: single-task AUC = 0.733, dual-task AUC = 0.750). Both single-task (r = 0.36) and dual-task (r = 0.37) speeds correlated positively with MMSE scores. Multiple logistic regression identified single speed as a significant predictor of MCI (single-task: OR = 1.047; dual-task: OR = 1.05). Random forest analysis confirmed the importance of dual-task speed (mean decrease accuracy = 24.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study identifies gait speed as superior to walk ratio and DTC for MCI detection, supporting its clinical adoption as a frontline screening tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":49287,"journal":{"name":"European Geriatric Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Geriatric Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01243-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The accurate and sensitive quantitative indicator for screening patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has not yet been established.

Methods: Our study involved the measurement and comparison of clinical features and gait indicators among 96 patients with MCI, 66 patients with SCD, and 50 individuals with normal cognition (NC). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, multiple logistic regression, correlation clustering heatmap plot, and random forest modeling were used to evaluate the ability of gait indicators to differentiate disease.

Results: No significant differences were observed in gait parameters between control and SCD groups [dual-task cost (DTC): p = 0.579; single-task gait speed: p = 0.656; dual gait speed: p = 0.951; single-task walk ratio: p = 0.683; dual-task walk ratio: p = 0.657]. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed no distinct clustering patterns between these groups. For MCI discrimination, gait speed showed moderate predictive value (control vs. MCI: single-task AUC = 0.725, dual-task AUC = 0.726; SCD vs. MCI: single-task AUC = 0.733, dual-task AUC = 0.750). Both single-task (r = 0.36) and dual-task (r = 0.37) speeds correlated positively with MMSE scores. Multiple logistic regression identified single speed as a significant predictor of MCI (single-task: OR = 1.047; dual-task: OR = 1.05). Random forest analysis confirmed the importance of dual-task speed (mean decrease accuracy = 24.99).

Conclusion: This study identifies gait speed as superior to walk ratio and DTC for MCI detection, supporting its clinical adoption as a frontline screening tool.

与步行比率和双任务成本相比,步态速度作为轻度认知障碍的优越筛选指标:一项横断面研究。
背景:目前尚未建立准确灵敏的筛查主观认知衰退(SCD)和轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者的定量指标。方法:对96例MCI患者、66例SCD患者和50例认知正常(NC)患者的临床特征和步态指标进行测量和比较。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线、多元逻辑回归、相关聚类热图图和随机森林模型评价步态指标对疾病的鉴别能力。结果:对照组和SCD组在步态参数上无显著差异[双任务成本(dual-task cost, DTC): p = 0.579;单任务步态速度:p = 0.656;双步速:p = 0.951;单任务行走比:p = 0.683;双任务步行率:p = 0.657]。主成分分析(PCA)显示各组之间没有明显的聚类模式。对于MCI识别,步态速度具有中等预测价值(对照与MCI:单任务AUC = 0.725,双任务AUC = 0.726;SCD vs. MCI:单任务AUC = 0.733,双任务AUC = 0.750)。单任务速度(r = 0.36)和双任务速度(r = 0.37)与MMSE得分呈正相关。多元逻辑回归发现单任务速度是MCI的显著预测因子(单任务:OR = 1.047;双任务:OR = 1.05)。随机森林分析证实了双任务速度的重要性(平均降低准确率= 24.99)。结论:本研究确定步态速度优于步行比和DTC检测MCI,支持其作为一线筛查工具的临床应用。
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
European Geriatric Medicine
European Geriatric Medicine GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Geriatric Medicine is the official journal of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS). Launched in 2010, this journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of Geriatric Medicine. The EUGMS is interested in the promotion of Geriatric Medicine in any setting (acute or subacute care, rehabilitation, nursing homes, primary care, fall clinics, ambulatory assessment, dementia clinics..), and also in functionality in old age, comprehensive geriatric assessment, geriatric syndromes, geriatric education, old age psychiatry, models of geriatric care in health services, and quality assurance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信