ArticlePloS one2023
Mild cognitive impairment identification based on motor and cognitive dual-task pooled indices.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the Cognitive Load of Cell Phone Use While Walking: Distinct Effects of Texting and Phone Conversation.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Sensorized Motor and Cognitive Dual Task Framework for Dementia Diagnosis: Preliminary Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Cortical Hemodynamic Abnormalities Associated With Fine Motor Deficits in Mild Cognitive Impairment.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Wearable Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older Adults: Systematic Scoping Review and Evidence Map.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Exploring the Relationship between Behavioral and Neurological Impairments Due to Mild Cognitive Impairment: Correlation Study between Virtual Kiosk Test and EEG-SSVEP.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigates the possibility of adopting motor and cognitive dual-task (MCDT) approaches to identify subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive impairment (SCI).
methodsThe upper and lower motor performances of 44 older adults were assessed using the SensHand and SensFoot wearable system during three MCDTs: forefinger tapping (FTAP), toe-tapping heel pin (TTHP), and walking 10 m (GAIT). We developed five pooled indices (PIs) based on these MCDTs, and we included them, along with demographic data (age) and clinical scores (Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) scores), in five logistic regression models.
resultsModels which consider cognitively normal adult (CNA) vs MCI subjects have accuracies that range from 67% to 78%. The addition of clinical scores stabilised the accuracies, which ranged from 85% to 89%. For models which consider CNA vs SCI vs MCI subjects, there are great benefits to considering all three regressors (age, FAB score, and PIs); the overall accuracies of the three-class models range between 50% and 59% when just PIs and age are considered, whereas the overall accuracy increases by 18% when all three regressors are utilised.
conclusionLogistic regression models that consider MCDT PIs and age have been effective in distinguishing between CNA and MCI subjects. The inclusion of clinical scores increased the models' accuracy. Particularly high performances in distinguishing among CNA, SCI, and MCI subjects were obtained by the TTHP PI. This study suggests that a broader framework for MCDTs, which should encompass a greater selection of motor tasks, could provide clinicians with new appropriate tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.