Scharre Douglas W, Chang Shu Ing, Nagaraja Haikady N, Vrettos Nicole E, Bornstein Robert A
Division of Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Avenue, 7th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Division of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2017 Jun 27;9(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s13195-017-0269-3.
The original paper Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) is a valid and reliable cognitive assessment tool used to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We evaluated identical test questions in a digital format (eSAGE) made for tablet use with the goals of calibrating it against SAGE and establishing its association with other neuropsychological tests and clinical assessments of cognitive impairment.
Subjects aged 50 and over who had taken SAGE were recruited from community and clinic settings. Subjects were randomly selected to participate in a clinical evaluation including neuropsychological evaluations. SAGE and eSAGE were administered using a crossover design. Subjects were identified as dementia, MCI, or normal based on standard clinical criteria. Associations were investigated using Spearman correlations, linear regression, and sensitivity and specificity measures.
Of the 426 subjects screened, 66 completed the evaluation. eSAGE score correlation to a battery of neuropsychological tests was 0.73 (p < 0.0001) with no significant difference between the paper and digital format. Spearman correlation of SAGE versus eSAGE was 0.88 (p < 0.0001), and they are related by the formula: eSAGE score = -1.05 + 0.99 × SAGE score. Since the slope is very close to 1 (p = 0.86) there is strong evidence that the scaling is identical between eSAGE and SAGE, with no scale bias. Overall, eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 1.21 and the decrease is statistically significant (p < 0.0001). For those subjects familiar with smartphones or tablets (one measure of digital proficiency), eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 0.83 points (p = 0.029). With a score 16 and higher being classified as normal, eSAGE had 90% specificity and 71% sensitivity in detecting those with cognitive impairment from normal subjects.
Tablet-based eSAGE shows a strong association with the validated paper SAGE and a neuropsychological battery. It shows no scale bias compared to SAGE. Both have the advantage of self-administration, brevity, four interchangeable forms, and high sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment from normal subjects. Their potential widespread availability will be a major factor in overcoming the many obstacles in identifying early cognitive changes.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02544074 . Registered on 18 March 2015.
原始的自我管理老年认知检查(SAGE)是一种有效且可靠的认知评估工具,用于识别轻度认知障碍(MCI)或早期痴呆症患者。我们评估了以数字形式(电子SAGE)呈现的相同测试问题,该形式专为平板电脑使用而设计,目的是将其与SAGE进行校准,并确定其与其他神经心理学测试以及认知障碍临床评估之间的关联。
从社区和诊所环境中招募了50岁及以上且已进行过SAGE测试的受试者。随机选择受试者参加包括神经心理学评估在内的临床评估。SAGE和电子SAGE采用交叉设计进行施测。根据标准临床标准将受试者分为痴呆、MCI或正常。使用Spearman相关性、线性回归以及敏感性和特异性测量方法来研究关联。
在筛选的426名受试者中,66名完成了评估。电子SAGE得分与一系列神经心理学测试的相关性为0.73(p < 0.0001),纸质版和数字版之间无显著差异。SAGE与电子SAGE的Spearman相关性为0.88(p < 0.0001),它们之间的关系由以下公式表示:电子SAGE得分 = -1.05 + 0.99×SAGE得分。由于斜率非常接近1(p = 0.86),有强有力的证据表明电子SAGE和SAGE之间的量表相同,不存在量表偏差。总体而言,电子SAGE得分平均低1.21分,且这种降低具有统计学意义(p < 0.0001)。对于那些熟悉智能手机或平板电脑的受试者(数字熟练度的一种衡量标准),电子SAGE得分平均低0.83分(p = 0.029)。将得分16分及以上分类为正常,电子SAGE在从正常受试者中检测出认知障碍患者方面具有90%的特异性和71%的敏感性。
基于平板电脑的电子SAGE与经过验证的纸质版SAGE以及神经心理学测试组合显示出很强的关联。与SAGE相比,它没有量表偏差。两者都具有自我施测、简短、四种可互换形式以及在从正常受试者中检测认知障碍方面具有高敏感性和特异性的优点。它们潜在的广泛可用性将是克服识别早期认知变化中诸多障碍的一个主要因素。
ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02544074。于2015年3月18日注册。