↓ Skip to main content

Validation and diagnostic accuracy of predictive curves for age-associated longitudinal cognitive decline in older adults

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
44 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation and diagnostic accuracy of predictive curves for age-associated longitudinal cognitive decline in older adults
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, December 2017
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.160792
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick J Bernier, Christian Gourdeau, Pierre-Hugues Carmichael, Jean-Pierre Beauchemin, René Verreault, Rémi W Bouchard, Edeltraut Kröger, Robert Laforce

Abstract

The Mini-Mental State Examination continues to be used frequently to screen for cognitive impairment in older adults, but it remains unclear how to interpret changes in its score over time to distinguish age-associated cognitive decline from an early degenerative process. We aimed to generate cognitive charts for use in clinical practice for longitudinal evaluation of age-associated cognitive decline. We used data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging from 7569 participants aged 65 years or older who completed a Mini-Mental State Examination at baseline, and at 5 and 10 years later to develop a linear regression model for the Mini-Mental State Examination score as a function of age and education. Based on this model, we generated cognitive charts designed to optimize accuracy for distinguishing participants with dementia from healthy controls. We validated our model using a separate data set of 6501 participants from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's Uniform Data Set. For baseline measurement, the cognitive charts had a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 84%) and a specificity of 89% (95% CI 88% to 90%) for distinguishing healthy controls from participants with dementia. Similar sensitivities and specificities were observed for a decline over time greater than 1 percentile zone from the first measurement. Results in the validation sample were comparable, albeit with lower sensitivities. Negative predictive value was 99%. Our innovative model, which factors in age and education, showed validity and diagnostic accuracy for determining whether older patients show abnormal performance on serial Mini-Mental State Examination measurements. Similar to growth curves used in pediatrics, cognitive charts allow longitudinal cognitive evaluation and enable prompt initiation of investigation and treatment when appropriate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 16%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Psychology 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 26 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#262,751
of 24,827,122 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#475
of 9,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,899
of 450,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#13
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,827,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.