Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement
Liu L, Wang H, Xing Y, Zhang Z, Zhang Q, Dong M, Ma Z, Cai L et al.. NPJ digital medicine, 2024-08-15
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. This retrospective cohort study explores the association between training dose and cognitive improvement to find the optimal CCT dose. From 2017 to 2022, 8,709 participants with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and mild dementia were analyzed. CCT exposure varied in daily dose and frequency, with cognitive improvement measured weekly using Cognitive Index. A mixed-effects model revealed significant Cognitive Index increases across most dose groups before reaching the optimal dose. For participants under 60 years, the optimal dose was 25 to <30 min per day for 6 days a week. For those 60 years or older, it was 50 to <55 min per day for 6 days a week. These findings highlight a dose-dependent effect in CCT, suggesting age-specific optimal dosing for cognitive improvement.
Key findings
- A mixed-effects model revealed significant Cognitive Index increases across most dose groups before reaching the optimal dose.
- These findings highlight a dose-dependent effect in CCT, suggesting age-specific optimal dosing for cognitive improvement.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants8,709
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 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 | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 8,709 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 39147783) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Liu, L., Wang, H., Xing, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Q., Dong, M., et al. (2024). Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01210-9
Vancouver
Liu L, Wang H, Xing Y, Zhang Z, Zhang Q, Dong M, et al. Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement. NPJ digital medicine. 2024. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01210-9. PMID: 39147783.
BibTeX
@article{liu2024-39147783,
author = {Liu, L. and Wang, H. and Xing, Y. and Zhang, Z. and Zhang, Q. and Dong, M. and Ma, Z. and Cai, L. and others},
title = {{Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement}},
journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1038/s41746-024-01210-9},
pmid = {39147783},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01210-9}
}