Home › Research › Digital health tools
A Rapid, Mobile Neurocognitive Screening Test to Aid in Identifying Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (BrainCheck): Cohort Study
Groppell S, Soto-Ruiz KM, Flores B, Dawkins W, Smith I, Eagleman DM, Katz Y.. JMIR aging, 2019-03-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results A total of 398 subjects were included in the normative population. BrainCheck Memory assessments were significantly correlated to the SLUMS exam, with coefficients ranging from .5 to .7. Correlation coefficients for the MMSE and BrainCheck and the MoCA and BrainCheck were also significant. A significant difference was found between the severely and moderately impaired subjects and the healthy subjects (P=.02). We derived a BrainCheck Memory composite score that showed stronger correlations with the standard assessments as compared to the individual BrainCheck assessments.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Groppell, S., Soto-Ruiz, K. M., Flores, B., Dawkins, W., Smith, I., Eagleman, D. M., et al. (2019). A Rapid, Mobile Neurocognitive Screening Test to Aid in Identifying Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (BrainCheck): Cohort Study. JMIR aging. https://doi.org/10.2196/12615
Vancouver
Groppell S, Soto-Ruiz KM, Flores B, Dawkins W, Smith I, Eagleman DM, et al. A Rapid, Mobile Neurocognitive Screening Test to Aid in Identifying Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (BrainCheck): Cohort Study. JMIR aging. 2019. doi:10.2196/12615. PMID: 31518280.
BibTeX
@article{groppell2019-31518280,
author = {Groppell, S. and Soto-Ruiz, K. M. and Flores, B. and Dawkins, W. and Smith, I. and Eagleman, D. M. and Katz, Y.},
title = {{A Rapid, Mobile Neurocognitive Screening Test to Aid in Identifying Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (BrainCheck): Cohort Study}},
journal = {JMIR aging},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.2196/12615},
pmid = {31518280},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/12615}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results A total of 398 subjects were included in the normative population.
- BrainCheck Memory assessments were significantly correlated to the SLUMS exam, with coefficients ranging from .5 to .7.
- Correlation coefficients for the MMSE and BrainCheck and the MoCA and BrainCheck were also significant.
- A significant difference was found between the severely and moderately impaired subjects and the healthy subjects (P=.02).
- We derived a BrainCheck Memory composite score that showed stronger correlations with the standard assessments as compared to the individual BrainCheck assessments.
Why it matters
This cohort study found that a mobile cognitive screening test called BrainCheck correlated significantly with standard assessments like the SLUMS, MMSE, and MoCA. It evaluates a tool for identifying cognitive impairment and does not offer any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants398
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 49/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR aging) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | JMIR Aging: journal h-index 49 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 398 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 69 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 7.7 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 4 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 34 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Yael Katz: h-index 7 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Stanford University: institution h-index 2,684 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31518280) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 49 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.
Later studies that cite this one
4 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 3 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.