Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III
Introduction : The aging population highlights age as a key risk factor for dementia and other cognitive disorders. Reliable diagnostic tools are crucial. This review examines the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG), focusin...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Kazimierz Wielki University
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Education, Health and Sport |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://apcz.umk.pl/JEHS/article/view/57572 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823856518644105216 |
|---|---|
| author | Magdalena Mąka Dominik Sikora Piotr Oleksy Adam Zając Karol Zieliński Łukasz Papież Ewa Góralczyk Jakub Kamiński Bartosz Buczkowski Dagmara Wochnik |
| author_facet | Magdalena Mąka Dominik Sikora Piotr Oleksy Adam Zając Karol Zieliński Łukasz Papież Ewa Góralczyk Jakub Kamiński Bartosz Buczkowski Dagmara Wochnik |
| author_sort | Magdalena Mąka |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Introduction : The aging population highlights age as a key risk factor for dementia and other cognitive disorders. Reliable diagnostic tools are crucial. This review examines the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG), focusing on their sensitivity, specificity, and utility in diverse healthcare contexts.
Purpose of Research: This analysis explores the clinical utility of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) for diagnosing cognitive disorders, including dementia, emphasizing their use in primary care and specialized settings.
Materials and Methods : A review of 37 peer-reviewed studies, including clinical trials and validation research, was conducted using databases like PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords included "GPCOG," "ACE-III," and "cognitive screening."
Results : ACE-III shows high diagnostic accuracy, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 93% and 96%. It excels in assessing complex dementia but is time-intensive and requires trained personnel, limiting its use in primary care. Conversely, GPCOG is a quick, user-friendly tool suited for primary care but lacks the depth for detailed diagnostics.
Conclusions : ACE-III is optimal for detailed evaluations in specialized settings, while GPCOG excels in rapid primary care screening. Combined, they enhance early detection and management of cognitive disorders.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a6399e08b1494ec88a98027a0dff25d4 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2391-8306 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | Kazimierz Wielki University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Education, Health and Sport |
| spelling | doaj-art-a6399e08b1494ec88a98027a0dff25d42025-02-12T08:17:50ZengKazimierz Wielki UniversityJournal of Education, Health and Sport2391-83062025-02-017810.12775/JEHS.2025.78.57572Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-IIIMagdalena Mąka0https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8702-9406Dominik Sikora1https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8604-1605Piotr Oleksy2https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0567-0317Adam Zając3https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1131-8700Karol Zieliński4https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6069-8053Łukasz Papież5https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1235-0057Ewa Góralczyk6https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9573-0381Jakub Kamiński7https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4725-5977Bartosz Buczkowski8https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8065-632XDagmara Wochnik9https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8604-2964Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, PolandMedical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, ul. księcia J. Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice, śląskie, Poland Introduction : The aging population highlights age as a key risk factor for dementia and other cognitive disorders. Reliable diagnostic tools are crucial. This review examines the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG), focusing on their sensitivity, specificity, and utility in diverse healthcare contexts. Purpose of Research: This analysis explores the clinical utility of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) for diagnosing cognitive disorders, including dementia, emphasizing their use in primary care and specialized settings. Materials and Methods : A review of 37 peer-reviewed studies, including clinical trials and validation research, was conducted using databases like PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords included "GPCOG," "ACE-III," and "cognitive screening." Results : ACE-III shows high diagnostic accuracy, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 93% and 96%. It excels in assessing complex dementia but is time-intensive and requires trained personnel, limiting its use in primary care. Conversely, GPCOG is a quick, user-friendly tool suited for primary care but lacks the depth for detailed diagnostics. Conclusions : ACE-III is optimal for detailed evaluations in specialized settings, while GPCOG excels in rapid primary care screening. Combined, they enhance early detection and management of cognitive disorders. https://apcz.umk.pl/JEHS/article/view/57572Cognitive screening toolsDementia diagnosisACE-IIIGPCOGPrimary and specialized healthcare settings |
| spellingShingle | Magdalena Mąka Dominik Sikora Piotr Oleksy Adam Zając Karol Zieliński Łukasz Papież Ewa Góralczyk Jakub Kamiński Bartosz Buczkowski Dagmara Wochnik Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III Journal of Education, Health and Sport Cognitive screening tools Dementia diagnosis ACE-III GPCOG Primary and specialized healthcare settings |
| title | Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III |
| title_full | Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III |
| title_fullStr | Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III |
| title_full_unstemmed | Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III |
| title_short | Two Approaches to Cognitive Evaluation: Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of GPCOG and ACE-III |
| title_sort | two approaches to cognitive evaluation assessing the strengths and limitations of gpcog and ace iii |
| topic | Cognitive screening tools Dementia diagnosis ACE-III GPCOG Primary and specialized healthcare settings |
| url | https://apcz.umk.pl/JEHS/article/view/57572 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT magdalenamaka twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT dominiksikora twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT piotroleksy twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT adamzajac twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT karolzielinski twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT łukaszpapiez twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT ewagoralczyk twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT jakubkaminski twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT bartoszbuczkowski twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii AT dagmarawochnik twoapproachestocognitiveevaluationassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofgpcogandaceiii |