Journal of Korean medical science · 2025
Comparison Between the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baek Min Jae, Park Young Ho, Kim SangYun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic utility of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 (MMSE-2) and the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in differentiating normal cognitive aging, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) within a Korean population.
METHODS: A total of 226 individuals with MCI, 97 with AD, and 91 cognitively healthy older adults were recruited. Participants underwent the MMSE-2, K-MMSE, and a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery. Discriminant analysis was employed to compare the classification accuracy of each tool, while sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: Discriminant analysis revealed that the MMSE-2 accurately classified 71.1% of participants, including 68.6% of MCI patients, 78.4% of AD patients, and 72.5% of healthy controls. In contrast, the K-MMSE achieved an overall classification accuracy of 67.9%, with 83.6% accuracy for MCI, 68.0% for AD, and 28.6% for healthy controls. ROC analysis indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) values for the MMSE-2: Brief Version (BV) (0.708), Standard Version (SV) (0.720), and Expanded Version (EV) (0.728) surpassed that of the K-MMSE (0.703) in distinguishing healthy controls from MCI patients. However, the K-MMSE (AUC = 0.936) demonstrated superior performance compared to the MMSE-2:BV (0.930), MMSE-2:SV (0.925), and MMSE-2:EV (0.921) in differentiating MCI from AD.
CONCLUSION: The MMSE-2:SV and MMSE-2:EV exhibit greater sensitivity in detecting cognitive impairment between normal aging and MCI. Conversely, the MMSE-2:BV and K-MMSE demonstrate superior sensitivity in distinguishing between MCI and AD. These findings underscore the importance of selecting an appropriate cognitive assessment tool based on specific diagnostic objectives and clinical contexts.
METHODS: A total of 226 individuals with MCI, 97 with AD, and 91 cognitively healthy older adults were recruited. Participants underwent the MMSE-2, K-MMSE, and a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery. Discriminant analysis was employed to compare the classification accuracy of each tool, while sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: Discriminant analysis revealed that the MMSE-2 accurately classified 71.1% of participants, including 68.6% of MCI patients, 78.4% of AD patients, and 72.5% of healthy controls. In contrast, the K-MMSE achieved an overall classification accuracy of 67.9%, with 83.6% accuracy for MCI, 68.0% for AD, and 28.6% for healthy controls. ROC analysis indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) values for the MMSE-2: Brief Version (BV) (0.708), Standard Version (SV) (0.720), and Expanded Version (EV) (0.728) surpassed that of the K-MMSE (0.703) in distinguishing healthy controls from MCI patients. However, the K-MMSE (AUC = 0.936) demonstrated superior performance compared to the MMSE-2:BV (0.930), MMSE-2:SV (0.925), and MMSE-2:EV (0.921) in differentiating MCI from AD.
CONCLUSION: The MMSE-2:SV and MMSE-2:EV exhibit greater sensitivity in detecting cognitive impairment between normal aging and MCI. Conversely, the MMSE-2:BV and K-MMSE demonstrate superior sensitivity in distinguishing between MCI and AD. These findings underscore the importance of selecting an appropriate cognitive assessment tool based on specific diagnostic objectives and clinical contexts.