Association Between Smartphone-Based IMU Turning Performance and Screening-Defined Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults

Le résumé fourni par la source

This study used a cognitive screening instrument rather than a clinical diagnosis to define screening-defined mild cognitive impairment (screening-defined MCI) in community-dwelling older adults. Smartphone-based instrumented Timed Up and Go (iTUG) assessment using inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors enables quantitative assessment of individual movement components. This cross-sectional study investigated the association between Turn 1 time and screening-defined MCI in 318 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥65 years. Cognitive function was assessed using the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J); 177 participants with scores ≤ 25 were classified as having screening-defined MCI, and 141 with scores ≥ 26 as without screening-defined MCI. Turn 1 time was significantly longer in participants with screening-defined MCI than in those without screening-defined MCI (median [IQR], 1.40 [1.20–1.50] vs. 1.20 [1.10–1.30] s; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded an AUC of 0.694 (95% CI, 0.637–0.751), and the preliminary, data-derived cutoff maximizing the Youden index was 1.35 s (sensitivity, 0.525; specificity, 0.780). After adjustment for age and sex, each 0.1 s increase in Turn 1 time was associated with higher odds of screening-defined MCI (OR, 1.322; 95% CI, 1.176–1.487; p < 0.001), while a Turn 1 time ≥ 1.35 s was associated with approximately threefold higher odds of screening-defined MCI (OR, 3.108; 95% CI, 1.832–5.271; p < 0.001). The association remained significant after additional adjustment for maximum walking speed and psychological distress (OR per 0.1 s increase, 1.286; 95% CI, 1.135–1.457; p < 0.001). Smartphone-based iTUG assessment of turning may provide complementary mobility-related information alongside established cognitive screening measures as part of a broader assessment of community-dwelling older adults. The 1.35 s cutoff should be considered a preliminary, data-derived threshold from an exploratory analysis, should not be used for clinical decision-making, and requires validation in an independent sample before any clinical application can be considered.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.