J Scanlan1, S Borson. 1. Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195-6560, USA. jscanlan@u.washington.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As elderly populations grow, dementia detection in the community is increasingly needed. Existing screens are largely unused because of time and training requirements. We developed the Mini-Cog, a brief dementia screen with high sensitivity, specificity, and acceptability. Here we describe the development of its scoring algorithm, its receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and the generalizability of its clock drawing scoring system. SAMPLE AND METHODS: A total of 249 multi-lingual older adults were examined. Scores on the three-item recall task and the clock drawing task (CDT-CERAD version) were combined to create an optimal algorithm. Receiver operating characteristics for seven alternatives were compared with those of the MMSE and the CASI using expert raters. To assess the CDT scoring generalizability, 20 naïve raters, without explicit instructions or prior CDT exposure, scored 80 randomly selected clocks as "normal" or "abnormal" (20 from each of four CERAD categories). RESULTS: An algorithm maximizing sensitivity and correct diagnosis was defined. Its ROC compared favorably with those of the MMSE and CASI. CDT concordance between naïve and trained raters was >98% for normal, moderately and severely impaired clocks, but lower (60%) for mildly impaired clocks. Recalculation of the Mini-Cog's performance, assuming that naïve raters would score all mildly impaired CDTs in the full sample as normal, retained high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (95%). CONCLUSION: The Mini-Cog algorithm performs well with simple clock scoring techniques. The results suggest that the Mini-Cog may be used successfully by relatively untrained raters as a first-stage dementia screen. Further research is needed to characterize the Mini-Cog's utility when population dementia prevalences are low. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND: As elderly populations grow, dementia detection in the community is increasingly needed. Existing screens are largely unused because of time and training requirements. We developed the Mini-Cog, a brief dementia screen with high sensitivity, specificity, and acceptability. Here we describe the development of its scoring algorithm, its receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and the generalizability of its clock drawing scoring system. SAMPLE AND METHODS: A total of 249 multi-lingual older adults were examined. Scores on the three-item recall task and the clock drawing task (CDT-CERAD version) were combined to create an optimal algorithm. Receiver operating characteristics for seven alternatives were compared with those of the MMSE and the CASI using expert raters. To assess the CDT scoring generalizability, 20 naïve raters, without explicit instructions or prior CDT exposure, scored 80 randomly selected clocks as "normal" or "abnormal" (20 from each of four CERAD categories). RESULTS: An algorithm maximizing sensitivity and correct diagnosis was defined. Its ROC compared favorably with those of the MMSE and CASI. CDT concordance between naïve and trained raters was >98% for normal, moderately and severely impaired clocks, but lower (60%) for mildly impaired clocks. Recalculation of the Mini-Cog's performance, assuming that naïve raters would score all mildly impaired CDTs in the full sample as normal, retained high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (95%). CONCLUSION: The Mini-Cog algorithm performs well with simple clock scoring techniques. The results suggest that the Mini-Cog may be used successfully by relatively untrained raters as a first-stage dementia screen. Further research is needed to characterize the Mini-Cog's utility when population dementia prevalences are low. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: John E Morley; John C Morris; Marla Berg-Weger; Soo Borson; Brian D Carpenter; Natalia Del Campo; Bruno Dubois; Keith Fargo; L Jaime Fitten; Joseph H Flaherty; Mary Ganguli; George T Grossberg; Theodore K Malmstrom; Ronald D Petersen; Carroll Rodriguez; Andrew J Saykin; Philip Scheltens; Eric G Tangalos; Joe Verghese; Gordon Wilcock; Bengt Winblad; Jean Woo; Bruno Vellas Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: P Forti; F Maioli; E Zagni; T Lucassenn; L Montanari; B Maltoni; G Luca Pirazzoli; G Bianchi; M Zoli Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Ali Shami; Maura Brennan; Peter St Marie; Peter K Lindenauer; Mihaela S Stefan Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: David A Drew; Hocine Tighiouart; Jasmine Rollins; Sarah Duncan; Seda Babroudi; Tammy Scott; Daniel E Weiner; Mark J Sarnak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Gustav Kamenski; Thomas Dorner; Kitty Lawrence; Georg Psota; Anita Rieder; Franz Schwarz; Asita Sepandj; Wolfgang Spiegel; Stefan Strotzka Journal: Ment Health Fam Med Date: 2009-12
Authors: Diana Crivellari; Kathryn P Gray; Silvia Dellapasqua; Fabio Puglisi; Karin Ribi; Karen N Price; István Láng; Lorenzo Gianni; Simon Spazzapan; Graziella Pinotti; Jean-Marc Lüthi; Richard D Gelber; Meredith M Regan; Marco Colleoni; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Rudolf Maibach; Manuela Rabaglio; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Breast Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 4.380