<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Kouzuki M</submitter><funding>Japan Society for the Promotion of Science</funding><pagination>457</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9727980</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>22(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>In the present study, we examined the distinguishing ability of a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment tool for rapid screening using a computer (MARC) for Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD), MCI, and non-demented controls (NDC) with no cognitive impairment, as well as its validity and reliability, as part of a preliminary trial for the development of the tool.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A total of 64 participants (23 in the ADD group, 17 in the MCI group, and 24 in the NDC group) were analyzed. The participants were administered MARC and a pre-existing computerized Alzheimer's dementia screening test (MSP), and 31 participants (14 in the MCI group, 17 in the NDC group) were readministered MARC within 4 months from the first test.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p &lt; 0.05 and p &lt; 0.01, respectively). In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) when comparing the NDC and MCI groups was 0.866 (95% CI, 0.759-0.974), when comparing the NDC and AD groups was 0.989 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000), and when comparing the MCI and AD groups was 0.889 (95% CI, 0.790-0.988). Furthermore, there was a significant correlation with the results of the existing test, MSP (r = 0.839, p &lt; 0.001). In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (1,1) when the first and second MARC scores were compared was 0.740 (95% CI, 0.529-0.865; p &lt; 0.001).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>MARC is considered capable of distinguishing MCI with high accuracy. The tool has good validity and reliability, and it can be administered in a short period of time without the need for a specialist.</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMC neurology</journal><pubmed_title>Validation of a novel computerized cognitive function test for the rapid detection of mild cognitive impairment.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9727980</pmcid><funding_grant_id>JP19K19460</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Miyamoto M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tanaka N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Urakami K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kouzuki M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Validation of a novel computerized cognitive function test for the rapid detection of mild cognitive impairment.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>In the present study, we examined the distinguishing ability of a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment tool for rapid screening using a computer (MARC) for Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD), MCI, and non-demented controls (NDC) with no cognitive impairment, as well as its validity and reliability, as part of a preliminary trial for the development of the tool.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A total of 64 participants (23 in the ADD group, 17 in the MCI group, and 24 in the NDC group) were analyzed. The participants were administered MARC and a pre-existing computerized Alzheimer's dementia screening test (MSP), and 31 participants (14 in the MCI group, 17 in the NDC group) were readministered MARC within 4 months from the first test.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p &lt; 0.05 and p &lt; 0.01, respectively). In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) when comparing the NDC and MCI groups was 0.866 (95% CI, 0.759-0.974), when comparing the NDC and AD groups was 0.989 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000), and when comparing the MCI and AD groups was 0.889 (95% CI, 0.790-0.988). Furthermore, there was a significant correlation with the results of the existing test, MSP (r = 0.839, p &lt; 0.001). In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (1,1) when the first and second MARC scores were compared was 0.740 (95% CI, 0.529-0.865; p &lt; 0.001).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>MARC is considered capable of distinguishing MCI with high accuracy. The tool has good validity and reliability, and it can be administered in a short period of time without the need for a specialist.</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Dec</publication><modification>2025-04-19T06:36:39.976Z</modification><creation>2025-04-19T06:36:39.976Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9727980</accession><cross_references><pubmed>36476188</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12883-022-02997-4</doi></cross_references></HashMap>