Abstract:Several studies have reported that about 65 % of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) suffer from cognitive impairment, with executive dysfunction being the most frequently described. Even if several executive screening tests have been designed to specifically detect executive deficits, few studies have investigated their ability to tackle such dysfunction particularly in multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the INECO fr… Show more
“…The IFS was designed to include several subtests in order to measure, in an efficient way, as many EF as possible. Previous studies have shown promising diagnostic performance [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] . Thus, it arises as an encouraging alternative for early detection of dementia cases.…”
BackgroundThe physicians often confuse the early symptoms of Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with Alzheimer dementia (AD), leading to misdiagnosis. There are some cognitive tests to discriminate between AD and behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), and the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) is a promising test for this purpose.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of the IFS to differentiate patients with AD from patients with bvFTD, compared with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB).MethodsA prospective study with 117 patients of our cognitive unit (35 case-patients with AD, 34 case-patients with bvFTD, and 48 control subjects). They were submitted to the following successive phases of evaluation: 1) screening; 2) dementia diagnosis; and 3) dementia sub-type diagnosis. The IFS and FAB were blind and independently applied by one neurologist to all the participants to end of phase 1 (screening), before to the definitive diagnosis establishment.ResultsbvFTD showed a lower performance than AD patients on the IFS total score (F(1, 66) = 70.10, p < 0.01) and FAB total score (F(1, 66) = 17.91, p < 0.01). The IFS and FAB showed a sensitivity of 94.12% (95%CI = 80.3–99.2) and 82.3% (95%CI = 65.4–93.2), and a specificity of 94.2% (95%CI = 80.8–99.3) and 48.5% (95%CI = 31.3, 66.1), respectively. The IFS showed significantly superior discriminatory accuracy than the FAB (AuCIFS = 0.98; AuCFAB = 0.73, p < 0.00001).ConclusionThe IFS is useful for discriminating between AD and bvFTD patients. The performance of the IFS to differentiate patients with AD from patients with bvFTD is greater than FAB.
“…The IFS was designed to include several subtests in order to measure, in an efficient way, as many EF as possible. Previous studies have shown promising diagnostic performance [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] . Thus, it arises as an encouraging alternative for early detection of dementia cases.…”
BackgroundThe physicians often confuse the early symptoms of Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with Alzheimer dementia (AD), leading to misdiagnosis. There are some cognitive tests to discriminate between AD and behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), and the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) is a promising test for this purpose.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of the IFS to differentiate patients with AD from patients with bvFTD, compared with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB).MethodsA prospective study with 117 patients of our cognitive unit (35 case-patients with AD, 34 case-patients with bvFTD, and 48 control subjects). They were submitted to the following successive phases of evaluation: 1) screening; 2) dementia diagnosis; and 3) dementia sub-type diagnosis. The IFS and FAB were blind and independently applied by one neurologist to all the participants to end of phase 1 (screening), before to the definitive diagnosis establishment.ResultsbvFTD showed a lower performance than AD patients on the IFS total score (F(1, 66) = 70.10, p < 0.01) and FAB total score (F(1, 66) = 17.91, p < 0.01). The IFS and FAB showed a sensitivity of 94.12% (95%CI = 80.3–99.2) and 82.3% (95%CI = 65.4–93.2), and a specificity of 94.2% (95%CI = 80.8–99.3) and 48.5% (95%CI = 31.3, 66.1), respectively. The IFS showed significantly superior discriminatory accuracy than the FAB (AuCIFS = 0.98; AuCFAB = 0.73, p < 0.00001).ConclusionThe IFS is useful for discriminating between AD and bvFTD patients. The performance of the IFS to differentiate patients with AD from patients with bvFTD is greater than FAB.
“…On the other hand, IFS is a brief neuropsychological test designed to explore executive functions across neurodegenerative pathologies such as AD, 13 behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, 14 Multiple Sclerosis (relapsing-remitting phase), 15 MCI, 16 and MCI in Parkinson's disease. 17 IFS is composed of eight subtests, organized into three main executive domains: 18 1) inhibition and change, 2) working memory, and 3) capacity for abstraction.…”
ABSTRACT. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) are two instruments frequently used to explore cognitive deficits in different diseases. However, studies reporting their use in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are limited. Objective: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of FAB and IFS in mild cognitive impairment (multiple-domain amnestic MCI subtype — md-aMCI). Methods: IFS and FAB were administered to 30 md-aMCI patients and 59 healthy participants. Sensitivity and specificity were investigated using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of IFS for MCI patients was .82 (sensitivity=0.96; specificity=0.76), whereas the AUC of FAB was 0.74 (sensitivity=0.73; specificity=0.70). Conclusions: In comparison to FAB, IFS showed higher sensitivity and specificity for the detection of executive dysfunctions in md-aMCI subtype. The use of IFS in everyday clinical practice would allow detecting the frontal dysfunctions in MCI patients with greater precision, enabling the early intervention and impeding the transition to more severe cognitive alterations.
“…Estos resultados coinciden con las investigaciones en casos clínicos; en este sentido, el estudio de pacientes con demencia realizado por Manes y su grupo obtuvo un corte de 25 puntos, con una sensibilidad del 96.2% y especificidad del 91.5%; y un área bajo la curva de 0.98 (Torralva, Roca, Gleichgerrcht, López et al, 2009). De manera similar el estudio desarrollado por Bruno y colaboradores, el uso del IFS en pacientes con esclerosis múltiple obtuvo un punto de corte de 25.5, con una sensibilidad del 73.53% y especificidad del 78.13%; con una área bajo la curva de 0.85 (Bruno et al, 2015).…”
Resumen La presente investigación tiene como objetivo analizar las propiedades psicométricas del INECO frontal screening (IFS) en una población de policonsumidores de la ciudad de Medellín, Colombia. El instrumento se administró a una muestra de 69 sujetos con consumo de sustancias psicoactivas y 69 sujetos control. Los análisis psicométricos evidencian una consistencia aceptable del test: 0.7; con respecto a su utilidad diagnóstica se estimó un punto de corte de 22.5 con una sensibilidad del 80% y una especificidad del 91%. Se encontró evidencia de validez de criterio al comparar el desempeño cognitivo entre el grupo caso y control obteniendo diferencias significativas: p<0.05 en cada escala y puntaje total. Por último, se realizó la validez de constructo mediante el análisis factorial exploratorio, encontrando una varianza explicada total de la prueba del 56%, proponiendo tres factores, lo cual contribuye a la eficacia del IFS para identificar déficits cognitivos en población con algún compromiso neurológico o alteraciones neuropsicológicas.Abstract This study analyzed the psychometric properties of the INECO Frontal Screening, IFS, in a population of polyconsumers of the city of Medellín, Colombia. The Psychometric analysis showed an acceptable consistency of the test: 0.7; with respect to its diagnostic utility, a cutoff point of 22.5 was estimated with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 91%. As to its validity, evidence of criterion validity was found when comparing cognitive performance between the case and control group, obtaining significant differences: p <0.05, in each scale and total score. Finally, construct validity was performed through exploratory factor analysis, and the total variance explained of the 56% test was found, suggesting three factors, which contribute to the effectiveness of the IFS test to identify cognitive deficits in people with some type of neurological and neuropsychological dysfunction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.