This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

39/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

90%) rated the app favorably, stating it was enjoyable and easy to complete unsupervised. These findings offer early support for the validity of the Ignite tests suggesting they measure the intended cognitive processes, capture a stable picture of performance over time, and are well accepted in healthy controls. This work supports the feasibility of administering the app remotely and its potential utility as a cognitive tool in FTD; however, validation is ongoing, and further work is required before Ignite can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Key findings

90%) rated the app favorably, stating it was enjoyable and easy to complete unsupervised.
These findings offer early support for the validity of the Ignite tests suggesting they measure the intended cognitive processes, capture a stable picture of performance over time, and are well accepted in healthy controls.
This work supports the feasibility of administering the app remotely and its potential utility as a cognitive tool in FTD; however, validation is ongoing, and further work is required before Ignite can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials.
(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Why it matters

This study offers early support for the validity of the Ignite app tests for frontotemporal dementia, suggesting they measure intended cognitive processes and are well accepted in healthy controls. However, validation is ongoing, and further work is required before the app can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 39/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Neuropsychology: journal h-index 183 (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	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	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Jonathan Daniel Rohrer: h-index 91 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40193495)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	39 / 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 names 8 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.

APA 7th

Convery, R. S., Adams-Carr, K. L., Nicholas, J. M., Moore, K. M., Goldsmith, S., Bocchetta, M., et al. (2025). Concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and normative properties of the ignite app: A cognitive assessment for frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0001005

Vancouver

Convery RS, Adams-Carr KL, Nicholas JM, Moore KM, Goldsmith S, Bocchetta M, et al. Concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and normative properties of the ignite app: A cognitive assessment for frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychology. 2025. doi:10.1037/neu0001005. PMID: 40193495.

BibTeX

@article{convery2025-40193495,
  author  = {Convery, Rhian S. and Adams-Carr, Kerala L. and Nicholas, Jennifer M. and Moore, Katrina M. and Goldsmith, Sophie and Bocchetta, Martina and Russell, Lucy Louise and Rohrer, Jonathan Daniel},
  title   = {{Concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and normative properties of the ignite app: A cognitive assessment for frontotemporal dementia}},
  journal = {Neuropsychology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1037/neu0001005},
  pmid    = {40193495},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0001005}
}

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also tagged “assessment”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →