Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Acceptable standards for clinic‐based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease
Louisa I. Thompson, Barak Gaster, Dustin B. Hammers, Sol Fittipaldi, Anna M. Barrett, Katherine A. Partrick, Emily Scholler, Ben Tiede et al.. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2025-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, combined with persistent underdiagnosis, is driving an increased need for scalable cognitive assessment tools. Digital cognitive assessments (DCAs) offer a promising solution by addressing longstanding barriers to routine cognitive testing and diagnosis. However, variations in performance and intended use have created confusion about their clinical applications and utility. The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a DCA Workgroup to define the preferred characteristics of DCAs to meet the needs of patients, health care providers, and regulators for three clinical contexts: (1) initial detection of cognitive impairment, (2) diagnostic support for MCI and dementia, and (3) characterization of cognitive profiles to support identifying etiology. In the near term, ensuring that DCAs meet or exceed the performance of non-digital tools is a priority. DCAs must be validated in the intended use population with well-characterized study samples and inclusive designs.
Key findings
- Digital cognitive assessments (DCAs) offer a promising solution by addressing longstanding barriers to routine cognitive testing and diagnosis.
- However, variations in performance and intended use have created confusion about their clinical applications and utility.
- The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a DCA Workgroup to define the preferred characteristics of DCAs to meet the needs of patients, health care providers, and regulators for three clinical contexts: (1) initial detection of cognitive impairment, (2) diagnostic support for MCI and dementia, and (3) characterization of cognitive profiles to support identifying etiology.
- In the near term, ensuring that DCAs meet or exceed the performance of non-digital tools is a priority.
- DCAs must be validated in the intended use population with well-characterized study samples and inclusive designs.
Why it matters
These recommendations from a workgroup define preferred characteristics for digital cognitive assessments in three clinical contexts: initial detection, diagnostic support, and characterising cognitive profiles. They concern assessment standards and do not report any treatment, cure or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 43 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 11 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 3.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 7.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 11 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 5 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41405443) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 43 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Thompson, L. I., Gaster, B., Hammers, D. B., Fittipaldi, S., Barrett, A. M., Partrick, K. A., et al. (2025). Acceptable standards for clinic‐based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70966
Vancouver
Thompson LI, Gaster B, Hammers DB, Fittipaldi S, Barrett AM, Partrick KA, et al. Acceptable standards for clinic‐based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.70966. PMID: 41405443.
BibTeX
@article{thompson2025-41405443,
author = {Thompson, Louisa I. and Gaster, Barak and Hammers, Dustin B. and Fittipaldi, Sol and Barrett, Anna M. and Partrick, Katherine A. and Scholler, Emily and Tiede, Ben and others},
title = {{Acceptable standards for clinic‐based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz.70966},
pmid = {41405443},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70966}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 14.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.