↓ Skip to main content

Increased Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital vs. Conventional Clock Drawing Test for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer’s Disease from Cognitively Healthy Individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 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 (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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.
Title
Increased Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital vs. Conventional Clock Drawing Test for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer’s Disease from Cognitively Healthy Individuals
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Müller, Oliver Preische, Petra Heymann, Ulrich Elbing, Christoph Laske

Abstract

The conventional Clock Drawing Test (cCDT) is a rapid and inexpensive screening tool for detection of moderate and severe dementia. However, its usage is limited due to poor diagnostic accuracy especially in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The diagnostic value of a newly developed digital Clock Drawing Test (dCDT) was evaluated and compared with the cCDT in 20 patients with early dementia due to AD (eDAT), 30 patients with amnestic MCI (aMCI) and 20 cognitively healthy controls (HCs). Parameters assessed by dCDT were time while transitioning the stylus from one stroke to the next above the surface (i.e., time-in-air), time the stylus produced a visible stroke (i.e., time-on-surface) and total-time during clock drawing. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and logistic regression analyses have been conducted for statistical analysis. Using dCDT, time-in-air was significantly increased in eDAT (70965.8 ms) compared to aMCI (54073.7 ms; p = 0.027) and HC (32315.6 ms; p < 0.001). In addition, time-in-air was significantly longer in patients with aMCI compared to HC (p = 0.003), even in the aMCI group with normal cCDT score (54141.8 ms; p < 0.001). Time-in-air using dCDT allowed discrimination of patients with aMCI from HCs with a sensitivity of 81.3% and a specificity of 72.2% while cCDT scoring revealed a sensitivity of 62.5% and a specificity of 83.3%. Most interestingly, time-in-air allowed even discrimination of aMCI patients with normal cCDT scores (80% from all aMCI patients) from HCs with a clinically relevant sensitivity of 80.8% and a specificity of 77.8%. A combination of dCDT variables and cCDT scores did not improve the discrimination of patients with aMCI from HC. In conclusion, assessment of time-in-air using dCDT yielded a higher diagnostic accuracy for discrimination of aMCI patients from HCs than the use of cCDT even in those aMCI patients with normal cCDT scores. Modern digitizing devices offer the opportunity to measure subtle changes of visuo-constructive demands and executive functions that may be used as a fast and easy to perform screening instrument for the early detection of cognitive impairment in primary care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 17%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 45 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Computer Science 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 47 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,142,248
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,225
of 5,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,708
of 325,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#44
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 325,563 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 121 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 62% of its contemporaries.