Sensitivity and specificity of the attention, memory, and frontal abilities screening test to identify objective cognitive impairment in older adults: a pilot study.

IF 2.1
Javier Oltra-Cucarella, Beatriz Bonete-López, Clara Iñesta, Daniel Guillén-Torrano, Oier Ripoll, Carla Okéghene Obodo-Arroyo, Rubén Pérez-Elvira, David Wöbbeking, Miriam Sánchez-Sansegundo, Mario Tomé, Bryan Freilich, Inmaculada Abellán-Miralles, Natalia Pérez-Carmona, Marina Ruiz-Piñero, Esther Sitges-Maciá
{"title":"Sensitivity and specificity of the attention, memory, and frontal abilities screening test to identify objective cognitive impairment in older adults: a pilot study.","authors":"Javier Oltra-Cucarella, Beatriz Bonete-López, Clara Iñesta, Daniel Guillén-Torrano, Oier Ripoll, Carla Okéghene Obodo-Arroyo, Rubén Pérez-Elvira, David Wöbbeking, Miriam Sánchez-Sansegundo, Mario Tomé, Bryan Freilich, Inmaculada Abellán-Miralles, Natalia Pérez-Carmona, Marina Ruiz-Piñero, Esther Sitges-Maciá","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acag075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The use of screening tests is part of the neuropsychological assessment. Recently, the Attention, Memory and Frontal Abilities Screening Test (AMFAST) has been developed and translated to Spanish. However, its diagnostic properties have never been compared to other tests used to identify cognitive impairment. The goal of this pilot study is to compare the diagnostic properties of the AMFAST with those of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD)-Neuropsychological Battery (CERAD-NB) in their ability to distinguish pre-defined clinical groups in a heterogeneous clinical sample of Spanish older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-four participants (66 cognitively unimpaired - CU; 28 cognitively impaired - CI) aged 50 or older were assessed with the AMFAST and the CERAD-NB, and differences between groups were analyzed with beta-binomial models. The diagnostic properties of both tests were calculated with adjusted-ROC curves, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CU group outperformed the CI group both on the AMFAST (b = -1.67, std. error (SE) = 0.19, p < .001) and on the CERAD-NB (b = -1.02, SE = 0.12, p < .001). The adjusted-ROC curves showed no differences in sensitivity and specificity compared to the model with test scores only, neither for the AMFAST (z = -1.03, p = .305) nor for the CERAD (z = -1.16, p = .246), with no statistically significant differences in the AUC (AMFAST = 0.954, CERAD = 0.954, p = .989).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our preliminary results based on a small, diagnostically heterogeneous sample suggest that the AMFAST and the CERAD-NB did not differ significantly to identify objective cognitive impairment. Future studies with larger, more homogenous samples are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":"41 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acag075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The use of screening tests is part of the neuropsychological assessment. Recently, the Attention, Memory and Frontal Abilities Screening Test (AMFAST) has been developed and translated to Spanish. However, its diagnostic properties have never been compared to other tests used to identify cognitive impairment. The goal of this pilot study is to compare the diagnostic properties of the AMFAST with those of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD)-Neuropsychological Battery (CERAD-NB) in their ability to distinguish pre-defined clinical groups in a heterogeneous clinical sample of Spanish older adults.

Methods: Ninety-four participants (66 cognitively unimpaired - CU; 28 cognitively impaired - CI) aged 50 or older were assessed with the AMFAST and the CERAD-NB, and differences between groups were analyzed with beta-binomial models. The diagnostic properties of both tests were calculated with adjusted-ROC curves, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared.

Results: The CU group outperformed the CI group both on the AMFAST (b = -1.67, std. error (SE) = 0.19, p < .001) and on the CERAD-NB (b = -1.02, SE = 0.12, p < .001). The adjusted-ROC curves showed no differences in sensitivity and specificity compared to the model with test scores only, neither for the AMFAST (z = -1.03, p = .305) nor for the CERAD (z = -1.16, p = .246), with no statistically significant differences in the AUC (AMFAST = 0.954, CERAD = 0.954, p = .989).

Conclusions: Our preliminary results based on a small, diagnostically heterogeneous sample suggest that the AMFAST and the CERAD-NB did not differ significantly to identify objective cognitive impairment. Future studies with larger, more homogenous samples are needed.

注意、记忆和额叶能力筛选测试识别老年人客观认知障碍的敏感性和特异性:一项初步研究
目的:筛选试验的使用是神经心理评估的一部分。最近,注意力、记忆和额叶能力筛选测试(AMFAST)被开发并翻译成西班牙语。然而,其诊断特性从未与用于识别认知障碍的其他测试进行过比较。这项试点研究的目的是比较AMFAST的诊断特性与建立阿尔茨海默病登记联盟(CERAD)-神经心理学电池(CERAD- nb)在西班牙老年人异质临床样本中区分预定义临床组的能力。方法:采用AMFAST和CERAD-NB对94名50岁及以上的参与者(66名认知未受损- CU, 28名认知受损- CI)进行评估,并采用β -二项模型分析组间差异。采用调整后的roc曲线计算两种检测方法的诊断特性,并比较曲线下面积(auc)。结果:CU组在AMFAST上的表现优于CI组(b = -1.67,标准差(SE) = 0.19, p)。结论:我们基于一个小的、诊断异质性的样本的初步结果表明,AMFAST和CERAD-NB在识别客观认知障碍方面没有显着差异。未来的研究需要更大、更均匀的样本。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书