Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Clinical validity of IntelliSpace Cognition digital assessment platform in mild cognitive impairment
Willem Huijbers, Nandor K Pinter, Mandy Spaltman, Mike Cornelis, Ben Schmand, Baraa Alnaji, Maxwell Yargeau, Sarah Harlock et al.. Frontiers in psychology, 2024-12-30
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
We evaluated a digital cognitive assessment platform, Philips IntelliSpace Cognition, in a case-control study of patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) older adults. Performance on individual neuropsychological tests, cognitive z-scores, and Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific composite scores was compared between the CN and MCI groups. These groups were matched for age, sex, and education. Performance on all but two neuropsychological tests was worse in the MCI group. After ranking the cognitive scores by effect size, we found that the memory score was the most impaired, followed by executive functioning. The Early AD/MCI Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (EMACC) and Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) scores were constructed from the digital tests on Philips IntelliSpace Cognition. Both AD-specific composite scores showed greater sensitivity and specificity than the Mini-Mental State Examination or individual cognitive z-scores. Together, these results demonstrate the diagnostic value of Philips IntelliSpace Cognition in patients with MCI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Huijbers, W., Pinter, N. K., Spaltman, M., Cornelis, M., Schmand, B., Alnaji, B., et al. (2024). Clinical validity of IntelliSpace Cognition digital assessment platform in mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1451843
Vancouver
Huijbers W, Pinter NK, Spaltman M, Cornelis M, Schmand B, Alnaji B, et al. Clinical validity of IntelliSpace Cognition digital assessment platform in mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in psychology. 2024. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1451843. PMID: 39807355.
BibTeX
@article{huijbers2024-39807355,
author = {Huijbers, Willem and Pinter, Nandor K and Spaltman, Mandy and Cornelis, Mike and Schmand, Ben and Alnaji, Baraa and Yargeau, Maxwell and Harlock, Sarah and others},
title = {{Clinical validity of IntelliSpace Cognition digital assessment platform in mild cognitive impairment}},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1451843},
pmid = {39807355},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1451843}
}
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.
Key findings
- After ranking the cognitive scores by effect size, we found that the memory score was the most impaired, followed by executive functioning.
- Together, these results demonstrate the diagnostic value of Philips IntelliSpace Cognition in patients with MCI.
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in psychology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — 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 | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39807355) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 32 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.