A Novel Game-Based Intelligent Test for Detecting Elderly Cognitive Function Impairment

Abstract

Purposes. This research explores the game-based intelligent test (GBIT), predicts the possibilities of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores and the risk of cognitive impairment, and then verifies GBIT as one of the reliable and valid cognitive assessment tools. Methods. This study recruited 117 elderly subjects in Taiwan (average age is 79.92 ± 8.68 , average height is 156.91 ± 8.01 , average weight is 59.14 ± 9.67 , and average MMSE score is 23.33 ± 6.16 ). A multiple regression model was used to analyze the GBIT parameters of the elderly’s reaction, attention, coordination, and memory to predict their MMSE performance. The binary logistic regression was then utilized to predict their risk of cognitive impairment. The statistical significance level was set as α = 0.05 . Results. Multiple regression analysis showed that gender, the correct number of reactions, and the correct number of memory have a significantly positive predictive power on MMSE of the elderly ( F = 37.60 , R 2 = 0.69 , and p < 0.05 ). Binary logistic regression analysis noted that the correct average number of reactions falls by one question, and the ratio of cognitive dysfunction risk increases 1.09 times ( p < 0.05 ); the correct average number of memory drops by one question, the ratio of cognitive dysfunction risk increases 3.76 times ( p < 0.05 ), and the overall model predictive power is 88.20% (sensitivity: 84.00%; specificity: 92.30%). Conclusions. This study verifies that GBIT is reliable and can effectively predict the cognitive function and risk of cognitive impairment in the elderly. Therefore, GBIT can be used as one of the feasible tools for evaluating older people’s cognitive function.

Retracted: A Novel Game-Based Intelligent Test for Detecting Elderly Cognitive Function Impairment

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”