Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Öhman F, Hassenstab J, Berron D, Schöll M, Papp KV.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021-07-20
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
There is a pressing need to capture and track subtle cognitive change at the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rapidly, cost-effectively, and with high sensitivity. Concurrently, the landscape of digital cognitive assessment is rapidly evolving as technology advances, older adult tech-adoption increases, and external events (i.e., COVID-19) necessitate remote digital assessment. Here, we provide a snapshot review of the current state of digital cognitive assessment for preclinical AD including different device platforms/assessment approaches, levels of validation, and implementation challenges. We focus on articles, grants, and recent conference proceedings specifically querying the relationship between digital cognitive assessments and established biomarkers for preclinical AD (e.g., amyloid beta and tau) in clinically normal (CN) individuals. Several digital assessments were identified across platforms (e.g., digital pens, smartphones). Digital assessments varied by intended setting (e.g., remote vs. in-clinic), level of supervision (e.g., self vs. supervised), and device origin (personal vs. study-provided). At least 11 publications characterize digital cognitive assessment against AD biomarkers among CN. First available data demonstrate promising validity of this approach against both conventional assessment methods (moderate to large effect sizes) and relevant biomarkers (predominantly weak to moderate effect sizes). We discuss levels of validation and issues relating to usability, data quality, data protection, and attrition. While still in its infancy, digital cognitive assessment, especially when administered remotely, will undoubtedly play a major future role in screening for and tracking preclinical AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Öhman, F., Hassenstab, J., Berron, D., Schöll, M., & Papp, K. V. (2021). Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12217
Vancouver
Öhman F, Hassenstab J, Berron D, Schöll M, Papp KV. Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2021. doi:10.1002/dad2.12217. PMID: 34295959.
BibTeX
@article{ohman2021-34295959,
author = {Öhman, F. and Hassenstab, J. and Berron, D. and Schöll, M. and Papp, K. V.},
title = {{Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.12217},
pmid = {34295959},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12217}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Digital assessments varied by intended setting (e.g., remote vs. in-clinic), level of supervision (e.g., self vs. supervised), and device origin (personal vs. study-provided).
- At least 11 publications characterize digital cognitive assessment against AD biomarkers among CN.
- First available data demonstrate promising validity of this approach against both conventional assessment methods (moderate to large effect sizes) and relevant biomarkers (predominantly weak to moderate effect sizes).
- We discuss levels of validation and issues relating to usability, data quality, data protection, and attrition.
- While still in its infancy, digital cognitive assessment, especially when administered remotely, will undoubtedly play a major future role in screening for and tracking preclinical AD.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 34295959) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.