↓ Skip to main content

Memory Binding Test Distinguishes Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia from Cognitively Normal Elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
102 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.
Article details
Title
Memory Binding Test Distinguishes Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia from Cognitively Normal Elderly
Published in
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, January 2017
DOI 10.1093/arclin/acw083
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We aimed to assess reliability and cross-sectional discriminative validity of the Memory Binding Test (MBT) to distinguish persons with amnestic cognitive impairment (aMCI) and dementia from cognitively normal elderly controls. The MBT was administered to 20 participants with dementia, 31 with aMCI and 246 controls, who received the first administration of the MBT from May 2003 to December 2007, as a substudy of the community-based Einstein Aging Study (age range: 70+). The optimal index resulted from comparing the partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) of four major MBT indices for specificities ≥0.70. Optimal cut-score of the optimal index was selected by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity. Age and education effects were assessed using stratified cut-scores and adjusted logistic regression. Reliability was computed as intraclass correlation between scores at baseline and 1-year follow-up for participants who remained cognitively normal. Total number of Items recalled in the Paired condition (TIP) was elected the optimal index. TIP cut-score was ≤22 for differentiating aMCI alone (sensitivity = 0.74, specificity = 0.73) and aMCI and dementia combined (sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 0.73) from controls. It was ≤17 for differentiating dementia from aMCI and controls (sensitivity = 0.95, specificity = 0.87). Age and education adjustments did not materially improve discriminative validity. The reliability of TIP was 0.77. MBT achieved moderate to good reliability. TIP had superior cross-sectional discriminative validity than the other MBT indices. We recommend using the empirical cut-score of TIP ≤22 for discriminating aMCI and dementia and ≤17 for discriminating dementia alone.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Linguistics 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 35 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 30 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,004,924
of 29,597,885 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
#192
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,083
of 434,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,597,885 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 434,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.