Sensitivity and Specificity of a Revised Version of the TRACK-MS Screening Battery for Early Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Cognitive impairment is one of the most common and debilitating clinical features of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Neuropsychological assessment, however, is time-consuming and requires personal resources, so, due to limited resources in daily clinical practice, information on cognitive profiles is often lacking, despite its high prognostic relevance. Time-saving and effective tools are required to bridge this gap. This study evaluates the sensitivity and specificity of a revised version of TRACK-MS (TRACK-MS-R), a recently published screening tool to identify cognitive impairment in MS in a fast and reliable way, offering a balance between efficiency and diagnostic yield for the individual patient. <b>Methods</b>: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 102 MS patients and 94 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls (HC) completed an extensive neuropsychological assessment, including TRACK-MS-R, to test for cognitive processing speed (Symbol Digit Modalities Test, SDMT) and verbal fluency (Regensburger Word Fluency Test, RWT). Sensitivity of TRACK-MS-R was assessed by using the BICAMS-M battery as a reference, and specificity was determined by comparing MS patients to HC. <b>Results</b>: TRACK-MS-R demonstrated high sensitivity (97.44%) when compared to the gold standard as represented by BICAMS-M for early and accurately detecting cognitive impairment in MS patients. Additionally, as a potential cognitive marker, TRACK-MS-R showed a specificity of 82.98% in distinguishing MS patients from healthy controls. <b>Conclusions</b>: TRACK-MS-R proves to be a highly sensitive and time-efficient screening tool for detecting cognitive impairment in patients with MS, while demonstrating good specificity compared to HC. Whereas high sensitivity is a prerequisite for a valid screening tool, its relatively modest specificity compared to BICAMS-M (62.9%) calls for caution in interpreting standalone results but instead indicates more extensive neuropsychological testing. Its briefness and diagnostic accuracy support its implementation in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-constrained settings.