A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue). | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study aimed to identify cut-off scores for classifying cognitive impairment and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a cognitive assessment tool, Cognivue, within a large validation study.
  • - Two cohort studies were conducted with adults aged 55-95 at risk for cognitive decline, examining the alignment of Cognivue scores with a reference test called the St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) through various statistical analyses.
  • - Results indicated that specific Cognivue score ranges corresponded to cognitive impairment levels, with good agreement between Cognivue and SLUMS scores, and indicated reliability across multiple testing sessions.

Article Abstract

Background: Cognitive issues such as Alzheimer's disease and other dementias confer a substantial negative impact. Problems relating to sensitivity, subjectivity, and inherent bias can limit the usefulness of many traditional methods of assessing cognitive impairment.

Aim: To determine cut-off scores for classification of cognitive impairment, and assess Cognivue safety and efficacy in a large validation study.

Methods: Adults (age 55-95 years) at risk for age-related cognitive decline or dementia were invited posters and email to participate in two cohort studies conducted at various outpatient clinics and assisted- and independent-living facilities. In the cut-off score determination study ( = 92), optimization analyses by positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), and by accuracy and error bias were conducted. In the clinical validation study ( = 401), regression, rank linear regression, and factor analyses were conducted. Participants in the clinical validation study also completed other neuropsychological tests.

Results: For the cut-off score determination study, 92 participants completed St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS, reference standard) and Cognivue tests. Analyses showed that SLUMS cut-off scores of < 21 (impairment) and > 26 (no impairment) corresponded to Cognivue scores of 54.5 (NPA = 0.92; PPA = 0.64) and 78.5 (NPA = 0.5; PPA = 0.79), respectively. Therefore, conservatively, Cognivue scores of 55-64 corresponded to impairment, and 74-79 to no impairment. For the clinical validation study, 401 participants completed ≥ 1 testing session, and 358 completed 2 sessions 1-2 wk apart. Cognivue classification scores were validated, demonstrating good agreement with SLUMS scores (weighted 0.57; 95%CI: 0.50-0.63). Reliability analyses showed similar scores across repeated testing for Cognivue ( = 0.81; = 0.90) and SLUMS ( = 0.67; = 0.82). Psychometric validity of Cognivue was demonstrated vs. traditional neuropsychological tests. Scores were most closely correlated with measures of verbal processing, manual dexterity/speed, visual contrast sensitivity, visuospatial/executive function, and speed/sequencing.

Conclusion: Cognivue scores ≤ 50 avoid misclassification of impairment, and scores ≥ 75 avoid misclassification of unimpairment. The validation study demonstrates good agreement between Cognivue and SLUMS; superior reliability; and good psychometric validity.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928378PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v10.i1.1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

validation study
16
clinical validation
12
cognivue scores
12
cognivue
10
scores
10
cut-off scores
8
cut-off score
8
score determination
8
determination study
8
percent agreement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!