ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Comparison of the Short Test of Mental Status

and the Mini-Mental State Examination
in Mild Cognitive Impairment
David F. Tang-Wai, MDCM; David S. Knopman, MD; Yonas E. Geda, MD; Steven D. Edland, PhD; Glenn E. Smith, PhD;
Robert J. Ivnik, PhD; Eric G. Tangalos, MD; Bradley F. Boeve, MD; Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD

Background: The Mini-Mental State Examination
(MMSE) is the most widely used brief screening mea-
sure of cognition, but it is not sensitive in detecting mild
memory or other cognitive impairments. The Short Test
of Mental Status (STMS) was specifically developed for
use in dementia assessment and was intended to be more
sensitive to problems of learning and mental agility that
may be seen in mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
Objective: To compare the STMS and MMSE for de-
tecting or predicting MCI.
study were evaluated through the Mayo Alzheimer’s Dis-
ease Patient Registry or the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Dis-
ease Research Center, Rochester, Minn, using a stan-
dardized diagnostic approach.
Results: The STMS was slightly more sensitive than the
MMSE in discriminating between patients with stable nor-
mal cognition and patients with prevalent MCI. The STMS
was superior to the MMSE in detecting deficits in cogni-
tion in individuals who had normal cognition at baseline
but later developed incident MCI or Alzheimer disease.

Design: Comparison of STMS and MMSE scores at base-
line among 4 groups of patients: 788 patients with stable
normal cognition, 75 patients with normal cognition at
baseline but who developed incident MCI or Alzheimer
disease during follow-up, 129 patients with prevalent MCI
at baseline, and 235 patients with prevalent mild Alz-
heimer disease. All patients and control subjects for this
Conclusions: Compared with the MMSE, the STMS was
better able to document MCI and was more sensitive in
detecting deficits in cognition in individuals who had nor-
mal cognition at baseline but later developed incident MCI
or Alzheimer disease.
Arch Neurol. 2003;60:1777-1781

M
ILD COGNITIVE impair-
ment (MCI) has taken
on increasing clinical
importance because it is
a precursor of demen-
tia.1 The Mini-Mental State Examination
(MMSE)2 is currently the mainstay of bed-
side mental status examinations, but it has
limitations,3-5 especially for detecting MCI.
The Short Test of Mental Status
(STMS)6,7 (Table 1) was developed and
advantages vs the MMSE. We retrospec-
tively compared the STMS and the MMSE
to determine if there was a clinically rel-
evant difference between the 2 tests in the
assessment of patients with MCI and de-
mentia.
METHODS
SUBJECTS

From the Departments of
Neurology (Drs Tang-Wai,
Knopman, Boeve, and
Petersen), Psychiatry
(Dr Geda), Health Sciences
Research (Dr Edland),
Psychology (Drs Smith and
Ivnik), and Internal Medicine
(Dr Tangalos) and the Mayo
Alzheimer’s Disease Research
Center (Drs Tang-Wai,
Knopman, Geda, Edland,
Smith, Ivnik, Tangalos, Boeve,
and Petersen), Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, Minn.
validated as a screening bedside mental sta-
tus test specifically for use in mild demen-
tia. It covers a broad range of cognitive
functions and uses a 4-word learning list
with a delayed recall of approximately 3
minutes.6 The construction of the recall
task in the STMS was intended to make it
more sensitive to the problems of learn-
ing and recall in MCI and early demen-
tia. In addition, the STMS includes test
items that better assess abstract reason-
ing and mental agility than the MMSE.
Despite theoretical improvements, we
questioned whether the STMS offered any
Patients and control subjects for this study were
recruited prospectively through the Mayo Alz-
heimer’s Disease Patient Registry and the Mayo
Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center
(Rochester, Minn) using a standardized proto-
col.8-12 Both projects were approved by the Mayo
institutional review board. The patients were de-
rived from 2 sources: community patients in
Rochester and regional patients referred to the
Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Cen-
ter. The community patients were recruited
through the Mayo Clinic Division of Commu-
nity Internal Medicine. Volunteers with and
without cognitive complaints or disorders were
recruited.

(REPRINTED) ARCH NEUROL / VOL 60, DEC 2003 WWW.ARCHNEUROL.COM

1777

©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

 Each patient was evaluated by either a behavioral neu- were evaluated as having normal cognition, MCI, or dementia
rologist or a behavioral neurology fellow, who obtained a medi- according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
cal history from the patient and corroborating sources and per- orders, Revised Third Edition.15
formed a complete neurological examination including the The diagnosis of MCI was made if the patient met the fol-
STMS.6,7 The physician also completed the Clinical Dementia lowing criteria: memory complaint, normal activities of daily
Rating Scale (CDR)13 based on both the mental status exami- living, normal general cognitive function, abnormal memory
nation and an interview of the subject or informant. If cogni- for age, and no dementia.15 The diagnosis of probable Alzhei-
tively impaired, the patient had a laboratory assessment and mer disease (AD) was based on National Institute of Neuro-
structural neuroimaging of the brain using either computed to- logical and Communicative Disorders and Stroke—
mography or magnetic resonance imaging. Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria.16
Each patient underwent a 4-hour neuropsychological test,
which included the MMSE2 and a battery of standard neuro- ANALYSIS
psychological tests.8-12,14
A consensus meeting was held weekly to review each pa- We examined the differences between the MMSE and STMS ob-
tient’s examination results. The team consisted of nurses, a geri- tained at the baseline visits. Because the comparison of the MMSE
atrician (E.G.T.), 4 behavioral neurologists (Emre Kokmen, MD and STMS was not prospectively conceived, the original study
[deceased], B.F.B., D.S.K., and R.C.P.), and 2 neuropsycholo- design did not maintain strict independence between test scores
gists (G.E.S. and R.J.I.). Subjects were given a consensus evalu- and clinical diagnoses. The neurologists’ diagnoses used the
ation based on all of the current information listed earlier and STMS and the patient’s medical history and functional assess-
ment, and the neuropsychologists used the MMSE scores and
the full psychometric battery. To avoid circularity biases, we
Table 1. The Short Test of Mental Status sought to isolate the diagnostic groupings from the baseline
STMS and MMSE scores. We grouped subjects according to their
Maximum status at follow-up. Subjects were considered to have stable nor-
Subtests Testing Score mal cognition if they remained cognitively healthy during the
Orientation Name; address; current location 8 course of follow-up and for a minimum of 2 subsequent an-
(building); city; state; date (day); nual evaluations. Subjects with incident MCI had normal cog-
month; year nition at the baseline evaluation but developed MCI or AD at a
Attention Digit span (present at 1 per second; 7 subsequent follow-up examination. By this strategy, the diag-
record longest correct span) nostic groupings were based on future status; although we used
2-9-6-8-3 the same instruments and procedures as at baseline, subjects
5-7-1-9-4-6 were grouped according to clinical course. As an additional ap-
2-1-5-9-3-6-2
proach to avoid circularity, we performed analyses in which
Learning and Learn our unrelated words: apple, 4
immediate recall Mr Johnson, charity, tunnel.
we grouped subjects according to their CDR score. Because the
Record the number of trials for CDR included information obtained from the patient’s medi-
acquisition (maximum of 4 trials). cal history, the global CDR score assigned to each patient con-
Calculation 5 ⫻ 13 = 4 tained additional information not derived from the mental sta-
65 − 7 = tus assessments.
58/2 = We used t tests for bivariate comparisons. Areas under the
29 + 11 = receiver operating characteristic curves were compared using
Abstraction/ Similarities: orange/banana, 3 a modified Mann-Whitney U test statistic.17 All statistical analy-
similarities dog/horse, table/bookcase. ses were performed using either SAS software (SAS Institute
Information President; first president; number of 4 Inc, Cary, NC) or S-plus software (Mathsoft Engineering and
weeks per year; define an island
Education Inc, Seattle, Wash).
Construction Copy the Necker cube. Draw a clock 4
face showing 11:10.
Recall The 4 words apple, Mr Johnson, 4
charity, tunnel.
RESULTS
Total Score* 38
The demographic features of the subjects grouped by cat-
*Total score = sum of the subtest scores − (number of trials for egories are presented in Table 2. The study group con-
acquisition − 1). For example, if a patient learned all 4 words on the first trial, sisted of 788 subjects with stable normal cognition, 75
nothing is subtracted from the sum of the subtest scores. If a patient
required 4 trials to learn the 4 words, then 3 was subtracted from the sum of subjects with normal cognition at baseline but who de-
the subtest score. veloped MCI (n = 54) or AD (n = 21) during the fol-

Table 2. Demographics of the Sample*

Stable Normal Cognition Incident MCI or AD Prevalent MCI AD

No. of patients 788 75 129 235
Women/men 498/290 53/22 80/49 170/65
Age at baseline, y 78.2 ± 6.9 81.3 ± 11.5 79.5 ± 7.2 80.9 ± 7.7
Education, y 13.2 ± 2.9 13.5 ± 3.4 13.3 ± 3.2 12.0 ± 3.1
Baseline MMSE total score† 28.2 ± 1.6 28.0 ± 1.6 26.3 ± 2.2 21.3 ± 4.4
Baseline STMS total score† 34.2 ± 2.4 32.5 ± 3.2 30.6 ± 3.1 23.2 ± 5.7

Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; STMS, Short Test of Mental Status.
*AD defined as a Clinical Dementia Rating Scale score of 0.5 at baseline. Values are expressed as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.
†The MMSE maximum score = 30; STMS maximum score = 38.

(REPRINTED) ARCH NEUROL / VOL 60, DEC 2003 WWW.ARCHNEUROL.COM

1778

©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

low-up period, 129 patients with prevalent MCI at base-
line, and 235 patients with prevalent very mild AD as
defined by a CDR score of 0.5 at baseline. There were
more women than men in all groups. Subjects with stable
normal cognition were slightly younger than the other
subjects.
As expected, the mean total scores on both the STMS
and the MMSE were higher in the stable normal cogni-
tion group compared with the prevalent MCI group and
in the MCI group compared with the prevalent mild AD
group (Table 1). In paired comparisons of subjects with
stable normal cognition vs those with prevalent MCI,
stable normal cognition vs AD, and MCI vs AD, the dif-
ference in means between groups was highly statisti-
cally significant for both the MMSE and the STMS
(P⬍ .001 for all comparisons).
The Figure depicts the receiver operating charac-
teristic curves of the STMS and the MMSE for discrimi-
nating the subjects with prevalent MCI from those with
stable normal cognition. The area under the receiver
operating characteristic curve was modestly but signifi-
cantly better for the STMS compared with the MMSE for
discriminating between diagnostic groups (stable nor-
mal cognition vs prevalent MCI). Table 3 presents the
quantitative data for that contrast and for the contrast
between groups defined by CDR score (CDR score of 0
vs CDR score of 0.5 to 1.5). For discriminating between
prevalent MCI and AD, there was no difference in the
performance of the 2 tests. To put the magnitude of the
differences between the STMS and the MMSE in per-
spective, we also conducted an analysis in which we
dropped the delayed-recall item from the MMSE. The
increase in area under the curve from the full MMSE to
the STMS was comparable with the difference in area
under the curve from the MMSE with the delayed-recall
element deleted compared with the full MMSE (lower
rows of Table 3).
In our sample, a cutoff score of 24 on the MMSE had
very poor sensitivity for detecting MCI, with a high speci-
ficity. A cutoff score of 29 had 82% sensitivity but a speci-
ficity of only 48%. The STMS exhibited a similar pattern
of trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity across a
larger range of scores. Sensitivity and specificity did not
exceed 80% for either test or any test value.
Finally, we compared the baseline STMS and MMSE
scores in subjects with stable normal cognition with those
of individuals with normal cognition who developed in-
cident MCI or AD. The mean±SD follow-up period for
the 75 individuals with incident MCI or AD was 5.6±3.1
years. The groups did not differ in MMSE score (P=.30)
but differed significantly in STMS score (P⬍.001) (Table
4 and Table 5). The result was not influenced by age,
sex, or education (P=.76 for MMSE and P=.001 for STMS,
testing group differences by logistic regression analysis
and controlling for age, sex, and education). One half of
subjects with incident MCI or AD scored 2 or lower on
the STMS recall subtest items at baseline compared with
25% of the clinically stable normal cognition group
(P⬍.001).
1.0
0.8
0.6
Sensitivity
0.4
0.2
Short Test of Mental Status
Mini-Mental State Examination
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Specificity
Receiver operating characteristic curves for baseline Mini-Mental State
Examination and Short Test of Mental Status scores to discriminate
individuals with normal cognition who remained cognitively healthy during
the course of the study (n = 788) from patients with prevalent MCI (n=129).
The difference between the 2 curves was statistically significant (␹2 =9.74;
P = .002).

Table 3. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Values*

AUC (95% CI) AUC (95% CI) ␹2 Statistic P Value

Groups compared†
CDRSoB = 0 vs CDRSoB = 0.5-1.5 0.66 (0.60-0.71) 0.71 (0.67-0.76) 3.98 .05
CDRSoB = 0.5-1.5 vs CDRSoB = 2.0-3.5 0.77 (0.69-0.85) 0.78 (0.70-0.85) 0.02 .88
Normal cognition vs prevalent MCI 0.75 (0.70-0.80) 0.82 (0.79-0.86) 9.75 .002
Normal cognition vs prevalent AD 0.96 (0.94-0.97) 0.97 (0.96-0.98) 3.05 .08
Prevalent MCI vs prevalent AD 0.86 (0.83-0.90) 0.88 (0.84-0.91) 0.65 .42
Groups compared‡
Normal cognition vs prevalent MCI 0.74 (0.70-0.79) 0.70 (0.64-0.75) 12.70 .004
Normal cognition vs prevalent AD 0.96 (0.94-0.97) 0.94 (0.92-0.96) 8.94 .003
Prevalent MCI vs prevalent AD 0.86 (0.83-0.90) 0.85 (0.82-0.89) 1.30 .25

Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer disease; AUC, area under the curve; CDRSoB, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale score sum of boxes; CI, confidence interval;
MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; STMS, Short Test of Mental Status.
*Determined using the ␹2 statistic and P value comparing the area under the MMSE and STMS receiver operating characteristic curves or under the full MMSE
and MMSE without the delayed-recall item receiver operating characteristic curves.
†The MMSE vs STMS.
‡Full MMSE vs MMSE without delayed-recall item.

(REPRINTED) ARCH NEUROL / VOL 60, DEC 2003 WWW.ARCHNEUROL.COM

1779

©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

 Table 4. Short Test of Mental Status Baseline Subscores*

Stable Normal Cognition Incident MCI or AD Prevalent MCI

Orientation 8.0 ± 0.2 7.8 ± 0.9 (P = .06) 7.7 ± 0.7 (P⬍.001)
Attention 6.0 ± 0.9 5.9 ± 1.0 (P = .55) 5.8 ± 0.9 (P = .03)
Learning/immediate recall 4.0 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 0.0 (P = .49) 4.0 ± 0.1 (P = .27)
Number of trials 1.2 ± 0.5 1.4 ± 0.6 (P = .03) 1.5 ± 0.8 (P⬍.001)
Calculations 3.4 ± 0.9 3.2 ± 1.0 (P = .04) 3.1 ± 1.1 (P = .008)
Abstraction 2.7 ± 0.7 2.6 ± 0.8 (P = .007) 2.6 ± 0.8 (P = .005)
Construction 3.5 ± 0.7 3.3 ± 0.7 (P = .006) 3.2 ± 0.8 (P = .001)
Information 3.9 ± 0.4 3.8 ± 0.6 (P = .08) 3.7 ± 0.6 (P⬍.001)
Delayed recall 3.0 ± 1.1 2.4 ± 1.2 (P⬍.001) 1.1 ± 1.2 (P⬍.001)
Total score 34.2 ± 2.4 32.5 ± 3.2 (P⬍.001) 30.6 ± 3.1 (P⬍.001)

Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment.

*Values are expressed as mean ± SD. P values refer to paired comparisons with subjects with stable normal cognition.

tively well educated. Our results may not generalize to

Table 5. Mini-Mental State Examination elderly individuals with low educational attainment.
Baseline Subscores* The introduction of calculations, verbal similari-
ties, and fund of information in the STMS was inten-
Stable Normal
Cognition Incident MCI or AD Prevalent MCI
tional, because it was developed for use with a popula-
tion with a high school education. In individuals with
Orientation 9.8 ± 0.5 9.8 ± 0.5 (P = .35) 9.1 ± 1.1 (P⬍.001)
fewer than 9 years of formal education, there might be
Immediate recall 3.0 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.2 (P = .84) 3.0 ± 0.1 (P = .60)
Attention 4.4 ± 1.0 4.0 ± 1.2 (P⬍.001) 4.2 ± 1.2 (P = .23)
fewer differences between the STMS and the MMSE.
Delayed recall 2.3 ± 0.9 2.4 ± 0.7 (P = .43) 1.6 ± 1.0 (P⬍.001) The MMSE has been the mainstay of bedside cog-
Language 8.7 ± 0.5 8.8 ± 0.4 (P = .24) 8.5 ± 0.7 (P = .003) nitive testing. We propose that the STMS is equally ef-
Total score 28.2 ± 1.6 28.0 ± 1.6 (P = .30) 26.3 ± 2.2 (P = .001) fective and may have some features that make it more
informative than the MMSE in persons with MCI. Bed-
Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment. side mental status assessment is only 1 aspect in the evalu-
*Values expressed as mean ± SD. P values refer to paired comparisons with
subjects with stable normal cognition.
ation of cognitive impairment. Neither the STMS nor the
MMSE can be used alone to diagnose MCI or dementia.
Clinical judgment and neuropsychological testing are in-
tegral in diagnosing MCI.
COMMENT

The present analysis showed that the STMS was slightly
more effective than the MMSE in differentiating be-
tween cognitively healthy individuals and individuals with
MCI. In addition, the STMS was superior to the MMSE
in detecting deficits in cognition in individuals who had
normal cognition but later developed incident MCI or
AD. For individuals with dementia, the STMS and the
MMSE were indistinguishable.
The differences between the 2 tests were modest, and
the most conservative comparison of the STMS and the
MMSE would be to say that they were very similar over-
all in their diagnostic accuracy. However, when the dis-
tinction between normal cognition and MCI was at stake,
the STMS was better than the MMSE. The additional cog-
nitive test items offered by the STMS revealed impair-
ments in subjects with MCI compared with those who
had normal cognition and also showed lower perfor-
mance in subjects with normal cognition who subse-
quently developed MCI or AD.
A potential limitation of the analyses was the bias
introduced by the availability of the STMS to the neu-
rologists and the MMSE to the neuropsychologists at the
time that the baseline diagnoses were formulated. We at-
tempted to minimize these potential biases by using 2
different analytic strategies, both of which showed that
the STMS was modestly superior to the MMSE. Another
limitation in this data set was that our subjects were rela-
Accepted for publication August 19, 2003.
Author contributions: Study concept and design (Drs
Tang-Wai, Knopman, Geda, Smith, Tangalos, Boeve, and
Petersen); acquisition of data (Drs Tang-Wai, Knopman,
Smith, Ivnik, Tangalos, Boeve, and Petersen); analysis and
interpretation of data (Drs Tang-Wai, Knopman, Ed-
land, Boeve, and Petersen); drafting of the manuscript (Drs
Tang-Wai, Knopman, Geda, and Petersen); critical revi-
sion of the manuscript for important intellectual content (Drs
Tang-Wai, Knopman, Edland, Smith, Ivnik, Tangalos, Bo-
eve, and Petersen); statistical expertise (Drs Knopman, Ed-
land, and Smith); obtained funding (Drs Smith and Pe-
tersen); administrative, technical, and material support (Drs
Ivnik, Tangalos, Boeve, and Petersen); study supervision
(Drs Knopman, Boeve, and Petersen).
This study was supported by grants AG 16574 and AG
07216 from the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Md.
Portions of this study were presented at the American
Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting; April 2, 2003; Ho-
nolulu, Hawaii.
We acknowledge the contributions of Kris Johnson, RN,
and the nurses, neuropsychometrists, and allied health staff
at the Mayo Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and
Healthy Aging Project, Rochester, for input and efforts ob-
taining information used in this article. We would also like
to acknowledge Tiffani Slusser, BS; Matt Plevak, BS; and
Tera B. Carpenter, BS, for assistance with this project.

(REPRINTED) ARCH NEUROL / VOL 60, DEC 2003 WWW.ARCHNEUROL.COM

1780

©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

 This article is dedicated to the memory of Emre Kok-
men, MD, the developer of the Short Test of Mental Status.
Corresponding author and reprints: David S. Knop-
man, MD, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First
St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: knopman@mayo.edu).
REFERENCES
1. Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M, Tangalos EG, Cummings JL, DeKosky ST.
Practice parameter: early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an
evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the
American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2001;56:1133-1142.
2. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-Mental State”: a practical method
for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;
12:189-198.
3. Anthony JC, LeResche L, Niaz U, von Korff MR, Folstein MF. Limits of the “mini-
mental state” as a screening test for dementia and delirium among hospital pa-
tients. Psychol Med. 1982;12:397-408.
4. Dick JPR, Guiloff EJ, Stewart A, et al. Mini-Mental State Examination in neuro-
logical patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47:496-499.
5. Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination: a comprehen-
sive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:922-935.
6. Kokmen E, Naessens JM, Offord KP. A short test of mental status: description
and preliminary results. Mayo Clin Proc. 1987;62:281-288.
7. Kokmen E, Smith GE, Petersen RC, Tangalos EG, Ivnik RJ. The Short Test of Men-
(REPRINTED) ARCH NEUROL / VOL 60, DEC 2003
1781
©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
tal Status: correlations with standardized psychometric testing. Arch Neurol. 1991;
48:725-728.
8. Petersen RC, Kokmen E, Tangalos E, Ivnik RJ, Kurland LT. Mayo Clinic Alzhei-
mer’s Disease Patient Registry. Aging. 1990;2:408-415.
9. Petersen RC, Smith G, Kokmen E, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG. Memory function in
normal aging. Neurology. 1992;42:396-401.
10. Petersen RC, Smith GE, Ivnik RJ, Kokmen E, Tangalos EG. Memory function in
very early Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1994;44:867-872.
11. Petersen RC, Smith GE, Ivnik RJ, et al. Apolipoprotein E status as a predictor of
the development of Alzheimer’s disease in memory-impaired individuals. JAMA.
1995;273:1274-1278.
12. Petersen RC, Waring SC, Smith GE, Tangalos EG, Thibodeau SN. Predictive value
of APOE genotyping in incipient Alzheimer’s disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1996;
802:58-69.
13. Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules.
Neurology. 1993;43:2412-2414.
14. Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cog-
nitive impairment: clinical characteristics and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:
303-308.
15. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Revised Third Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation; 1987.
16. McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical
diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group un-
der the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on
Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939-944.
17. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or
more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric ap-
proach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
WWW.ARCHNEUROL.COM