Institute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases and the Aging Brain, Department of Clinical Research in Neurology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", "Pia Fondazione Cardinale G. Panico", Tricase, Lecce, Italy.
Neurol Sci. 2024 Dec;45(12):5697-5706. doi: 10.1007/s10072-024-07691-6. Epub 2024 Jul 16.
Cognitive screening tools are widely used in clinical practice to screen for age-related cognitive impairment and dementia. These tools' test scores are known to be influenced by age and education, leading to routine correction of raw scores for these factors. Despite these corrections being common practice, there is evidence suggesting that corrected scores may perform worse in terms of discrimination than raw scores.
To address the ongoing debate in the field of dementia research, we assessed the impact of the corrections on discrimination, specificity, and sensitivity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test in Italy, both for the overall population and across age and education strata.
We created a realistic model of the resident population in Italy in terms of age, education, cognitive impairment and test scores, and performed a simulation study.
We confirmed that the discrimination performance was higher for raw scores than for corrected scores in discriminating patients with cognitive impairment from individuals without (areas under the curve of 0.947 and 0.923 respectively). With thresholds determined on the overall population, raw scores showed higher sensitivities for higher-risk age-education groups and higher specificities for lower-risk groups. Conversely, corrected scores showed uniform sensitivity and specificity across demographic strata, and thus better performance for certain age-education groups.
Raw and corrected scores show different performances due to the underlying causal relationships between the variables. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, the optimal choice between raw and corrected scores depends on the aims and preferences of practitioners and policymakers.
认知筛查工具在临床实践中被广泛用于筛查与年龄相关的认知障碍和痴呆。这些工具的测试分数已知受年龄和教育的影响,因此常规对这些因素进行原始分数的校正。尽管这些校正很常见,但有证据表明,校正后的分数在区分能力方面可能不如原始分数。
为了解决痴呆症研究领域的持续争论,我们评估了在意大利,蒙特利尔认知评估测试的校正对其区分能力、特异性和敏感性的影响,包括总体人群以及按年龄和教育程度分层的人群。
我们根据年龄、教育、认知障碍和测试分数,创建了一个意大利居民人群的现实模型,并进行了模拟研究。
我们证实,在区分有认知障碍的患者和无认知障碍的个体时,原始分数的区分性能高于校正分数(曲线下面积分别为 0.947 和 0.923)。在总体人群中确定的阈值下,原始分数在高风险的年龄-教育组中显示出更高的敏感性,而在低风险组中显示出更高的特异性。相反,校正分数在各个人口统计学分层中表现出一致的敏感性和特异性,因此在某些年龄-教育组中表现更好。
由于变量之间的潜在因果关系,原始分数和校正分数的表现不同。每种方法都有优点和缺点,在原始分数和校正分数之间的最佳选择取决于从业者和决策者的目标和偏好。