Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is clinical diagnosis that refers to individuals whose performance is below average on standardized cognitive tests, but who otherwise function independently in instrumental activities of daily living. Few prior studies have addressed the problem of selecting the optimal combination of behavioral instruments and cutoff scores for detecting MCI in an outpatient setting. The aim of this work is to provide insight into two related questions: (1) What is the relative sensitivity and specificity of a battery of standardized tests frequently used to assess for MCI, as defined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-based analysis? (2) What are the optimal “cut point” scores for distinguishing patients’ mildly impaired performance based on these instruments?
Two hundred forty outpatient behavioral neurology evaluations were retrospectively analyzed. All work was conducted with the formal approval of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. All instruments that were evaluated performed very well in the detection of dementia (mean AUC = 0.8). However, fewer tasks performed acceptably in the detection of MCI (mean AUC = 0.7). Instruments that performed best in the detection of MCI tended to have higher total possible scores or not to reflect a score out of a total number possible.
Cognitive screening tools, like the MMSE, did not perform well in the detection of MCI, raising important considerations for their interpretation. No one task in isolation is sufficient to detect MCI, and behavioral performance is not the only relevant consideration in differential diagnosis. However, these findings highlight the relative weakness of many assessments when used to build a comprehensive profile of a very large portion of outpatients presenting at clinic, those whose deficits are more subtle.
Competing Interest Statement
The individuals who completed this work are supported in part by NIH/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH/NIDCD): P50 DC014664, R01 DC05375, R01 DC015466, and R01 DC011739. Dr. Hillis receives compensation from the American Heart Association as Editor-in-Chief of Stroke and from Elsevier as Associate Editor of PracticeUpdate Neurology.
Funding Statement
The individuals who completed this work are supported in part by NIH/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH/NIDCD): P50 DC014664, R01 DC05375, R01 DC015466, and R01 DC011739.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB-3; Federal Wide Assurance # FWA00005752-JHUSOM, FWA00006087-JHH & JHHS, and FWA00005719-KKI OHRP IRB Registration #IRB00400111) gave ethical approval for this work. Participant consent was not required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The conditions of our ethics approval do not permit public archiving of study data. Anonymized data are available upon request to the authors, subject to review by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board resulting in a formal data sharing agreement.
