自我管理的老年认知检查(SAGE):记忆诊所中认知功能未受损对照和轻度认知障碍或痴呆患者平行版本的等效性和有效性

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Roy P C Kessels, Floor S van Bergen, Iris J Harmsen, Daan K L Sleutjes, Paul L J Dautzenberg, Joukje M Oosterman
{"title":"自我管理的老年认知检查(SAGE):记忆诊所中认知功能未受损对照和轻度认知障碍或痴呆患者平行版本的等效性和有效性","authors":"Roy P C Kessels, Floor S van Bergen, Iris J Harmsen, Daan K L Sleutjes, Paul L J Dautzenberg, Joukje M Oosterman","doi":"10.1097/WAD.0000000000000673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cognitive screens to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia require supervision and cannot be easily administered in primary care. Here, we validated the Self-Administered Gerontocognitive Examination (SAGE), investigating the alternate version equivalence, the convergent validity using neuropsychological tests, and its diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Thirty-two MCI patients and 34 with dementia were recruited from a memory clinic in the Netherlands, and 69 healthy controls over the age of 50.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 4 alternate versions of the SAGE were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed, comparing the controls to the MCI and dementia groups. Associations between SAGE scores and standard neuropsychological tests were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No performance differences were found between the alternate versions. Performance differences were found on the SAGE between the 3 groups, with fair to good areas under the curve. A cutoff score of <18 had the best diagnostic accuracy for controls versus dementia, <20 for controls versus MCI and <19 for controls versus cognitively impaired. SAGE scores correlated with standard neuropsychological tests.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The SAGE is a valid tool for distinguishing cognitively unimpaired individuals from people with dementia or MCI.</p>","PeriodicalId":7679,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101880/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE): Equivalence of Parallel Versions and Validity in Cognitively Unimpaired Controls and Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia in a Memory Clinic.\",\"authors\":\"Roy P C Kessels, Floor S van Bergen, Iris J Harmsen, Daan K L Sleutjes, Paul L J Dautzenberg, Joukje M Oosterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WAD.0000000000000673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cognitive screens to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia require supervision and cannot be easily administered in primary care. Here, we validated the Self-Administered Gerontocognitive Examination (SAGE), investigating the alternate version equivalence, the convergent validity using neuropsychological tests, and its diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Thirty-two MCI patients and 34 with dementia were recruited from a memory clinic in the Netherlands, and 69 healthy controls over the age of 50.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 4 alternate versions of the SAGE were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed, comparing the controls to the MCI and dementia groups. Associations between SAGE scores and standard neuropsychological tests were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No performance differences were found between the alternate versions. Performance differences were found on the SAGE between the 3 groups, with fair to good areas under the curve. A cutoff score of <18 had the best diagnostic accuracy for controls versus dementia, <20 for controls versus MCI and <19 for controls versus cognitively impaired. SAGE scores correlated with standard neuropsychological tests.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The SAGE is a valid tool for distinguishing cognitively unimpaired individuals from people with dementia or MCI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101880/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000673\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000673","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:诊断轻度认知障碍(MCI)或痴呆的认知筛查需要监督,在初级保健中不容易实施。在这里,我们验证了自我管理老年认知检查(SAGE),调查替代版本等效性,使用神经心理学测试的收敛效度及其诊断准确性。患者:从荷兰的一家记忆诊所招募了32名轻度认知障碍患者和34名痴呆症患者,以及69名50岁以上的健康对照。方法:比较4种不同版本的SAGE。进行受试者工作特征(ROC)分析,将对照组与MCI组和痴呆组进行比较。研究了SAGE评分与标准神经心理测试之间的关系。结果:两种不同版本间无明显差异。在三组之间的SAGE上发现了性能差异,曲线下有相当好的区域。讨论的截止分数:SAGE是区分认知未受损个体与痴呆或轻度认知障碍患者的有效工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE): Equivalence of Parallel Versions and Validity in Cognitively Unimpaired Controls and Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia in a Memory Clinic.

Objective: Cognitive screens to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia require supervision and cannot be easily administered in primary care. Here, we validated the Self-Administered Gerontocognitive Examination (SAGE), investigating the alternate version equivalence, the convergent validity using neuropsychological tests, and its diagnostic accuracy.

Patients: Thirty-two MCI patients and 34 with dementia were recruited from a memory clinic in the Netherlands, and 69 healthy controls over the age of 50.

Methods: The 4 alternate versions of the SAGE were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed, comparing the controls to the MCI and dementia groups. Associations between SAGE scores and standard neuropsychological tests were examined.

Results: No performance differences were found between the alternate versions. Performance differences were found on the SAGE between the 3 groups, with fair to good areas under the curve. A cutoff score of <18 had the best diagnostic accuracy for controls versus dementia, <20 for controls versus MCI and <19 for controls versus cognitively impaired. SAGE scores correlated with standard neuropsychological tests.

Discussion: The SAGE is a valid tool for distinguishing cognitively unimpaired individuals from people with dementia or MCI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: ​Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal directed to an audience of clinicians and researchers, with primary emphasis on Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. The journal publishes original articles emphasizing research in humans including epidemiologic studies, clinical trials and experimental studies, studies of diagnosis and biomarkers, as well as research on the health of persons with dementia and their caregivers. The scientific portion of the journal is augmented by reviews of the current literature, concepts, conjectures, and hypotheses in dementia, brief reports, 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