Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Digitized and AI-Assisted Scoring of Cognitive Assessments in ALS and Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review of Consistency, Reliability, and Cross-Site Applicability
Bingham IN, Rao A, Luchkina N, Abrahams S, Al-Chalabi A.. PsyArXiv, 2026-06-25
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) is the most validated and widely-used ALS-specific cognitive assessment tool, yet paper-and-pencil manual scoring introduces inter-rater variability that can significantly limit reliability and reproducibility in multi-site clinical trials. Data were extracted using standardized templates.Results.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bingham, I. N., Rao, A., Luchkina, N., Abrahams, S., & Al-Chalabi, A. (2026). Digitized and AI-Assisted Scoring of Cognitive Assessments in ALS and Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review of Consistency, Reliability, and Cross-Site Applicability. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/a79u4_v2
Vancouver
Bingham IN, Rao A, Luchkina N, Abrahams S, Al-Chalabi A. Digitized and AI-Assisted Scoring of Cognitive Assessments in ALS and Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review of Consistency, Reliability, and Cross-Site Applicability. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/a79u4_v2.
BibTeX
@article{bingham2026-78e22c6f,
author = {Bingham, I. N. and Rao, A. and Luchkina, N. and Abrahams, S. and Al-Chalabi, A.},
title = {{Digitized and AI-Assisted Scoring of Cognitive Assessments in ALS and Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review of Consistency, Reliability, and Cross-Site Applicability}},
journal = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/a79u4_v2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/a79u4_v2}
}
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
- The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) is the most validated and widely-used ALS-specific cognitive assessment tool, yet paper-and-pencil manual scoring introduces inter-rater variability that can significantly limit reliability and reproducibility in multi-site clinical trials.
- Data were extracted using standardized templates.Results.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 47 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 29 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 29 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 “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.