Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Detecting early cognitive deficits in preclinical Alzheimer's disease using a remote digital multi-day learning paradigm
Jutten RJ, Soberanes D, Molinare CP, Hsieh S, Farrell ME, Schultz AS, Rentz DM, Marshall GA et al.. NPJ digital medicine, 2025-01-13
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Remote, digital cognitive testing on an individual's own device provides the opportunity to deploy previously understudied but promising cognitive paradigms in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). The Boston Remote Assessment for NeuroCognitive Health (BRANCH) captures a personalized learning curve for the same information presented over seven consecutive days. Here, we examined BRANCH multi-day learning curves (MDLCs) in 167 cognitively unimpaired older adults (age = 74.3 ± 7.5, 63% female) with different amyloid-β (A) and tau (T) biomarker profiles on positron emission tomography. MDLC scores decreased across ascending biomarker groups, with the A + T- group performing numerically worse (β = -0.24, 95%CI[-0.55,0.07], p = 0.128) and the A + T+ group performing significantly worse (β = -0.58, 95%CI[-1.06,-0.10], p = 0.018) than the A-T- group. Further, lower MDLC scores were associated with greater cortical thinning (β = 0.18, 95%CI[0.04,0.34], p = 0.013). Our results suggest that diminished MDLCs track with advanced AD pathophysiology, and demonstrate how a digital multi-day learning paradigm can provide novel insights about cognitive decline during preclinical AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jutten, R. J., Soberanes, D., Molinare, C. P., Hsieh, S., Farrell, M. E., Schultz, A. S., et al. (2025). Detecting early cognitive deficits in preclinical Alzheimer's disease using a remote digital multi-day learning paradigm. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01347-7
Vancouver
Jutten RJ, Soberanes D, Molinare CP, Hsieh S, Farrell ME, Schultz AS, et al. Detecting early cognitive deficits in preclinical Alzheimer's disease using a remote digital multi-day learning paradigm. NPJ digital medicine. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01347-7. PMID: 39806194.
BibTeX
@article{jutten2025-39806194,
author = {Jutten, R. J. and Soberanes, D. and Molinare, C. P. and Hsieh, S. and Farrell, M. E. and Schultz, A. S. and Rentz, D. M. and Marshall, G. A. and others},
title = {{Detecting early cognitive deficits in preclinical Alzheimer's disease using a remote digital multi-day learning paradigm}},
journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41746-024-01347-7},
pmid = {39806194},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01347-7}
}
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
- MDLC scores decreased across ascending biomarker groups, with the A + T- group performing numerically worse (β = -0.24, 95%CI[-0.55,0.07], p = 0.128) and the A + T+ group performing significantly worse (β = -0.58, 95%CI[-1.06,-0.10], p = 0.018) than the A-T- group.
- Further, lower MDLC scores were associated with greater cortical thinning (β = 0.18, 95%CI[0.04,0.34], p = 0.013).
- Our results suggest that diminished MDLCs track with advanced AD pathophysiology, and demonstrate how a digital multi-day learning paradigm can provide novel insights about cognitive decline during preclinical AD.
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 randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NPJ digital medicine) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39806194) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 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
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “early-cognitive”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “early-cognitive”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.