↓ Skip to main content

Digitally translated Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (eSAGE): relationship with its validated paper version, neuropsychological evaluations, and clinical assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Digitally translated Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (eSAGE): relationship with its validated paper version, neuropsychological evaluations, and clinical assessments
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-017-0269-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas W. Scharre, Shu ing Chang, Haikady N. Nagaraja, Nicole E. Vrettos, Robert A. Bornstein

Abstract

The original paper Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) is a valid and reliable cognitive assessment tool used to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We evaluated identical test questions in a digital format (eSAGE) made for tablet use with the goals of calibrating it against SAGE and establishing its association with other neuropsychological tests and clinical assessments of cognitive impairment. Subjects aged 50 and over who had taken SAGE were recruited from community and clinic settings. Subjects were randomly selected to participate in a clinical evaluation including neuropsychological evaluations. SAGE and eSAGE were administered using a crossover design. Subjects were identified as dementia, MCI, or normal based on standard clinical criteria. Associations were investigated using Spearman correlations, linear regression, and sensitivity and specificity measures. Of the 426 subjects screened, 66 completed the evaluation. eSAGE score correlation to a battery of neuropsychological tests was 0.73 (p < 0.0001) with no significant difference between the paper and digital format. Spearman correlation of SAGE versus eSAGE was 0.88 (p < 0.0001), and they are related by the formula: eSAGE score = -1.05 + 0.99 × SAGE score. Since the slope is very close to 1 (p = 0.86) there is strong evidence that the scaling is identical between eSAGE and SAGE, with no scale bias. Overall, eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 1.21 and the decrease is statistically significant (p < 0.0001). For those subjects familiar with smartphones or tablets (one measure of digital proficiency), eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 0.83 points (p = 0.029). With a score 16 and higher being classified as normal, eSAGE had 90% specificity and 71% sensitivity in detecting those with cognitive impairment from normal subjects. Tablet-based eSAGE shows a strong association with the validated paper SAGE and a neuropsychological battery. It shows no scale bias compared to SAGE. Both have the advantage of self-administration, brevity, four interchangeable forms, and high sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment from normal subjects. Their potential widespread availability will be a major factor in overcoming the many obstacles in identifying early cognitive changes. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02544074 . Registered on 18 March 2015.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 53 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Psychology 18 12%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 55 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 11 August 2022.
All research outputs
#681,265
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#78
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,868
of 315,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 315,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.