alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment

Intensive assessment of executive functions derived from performance in cognitive training games

Soldevila-Domenech N, De Toma I, Forcano L, Diaz-Pellicer P, Cuenca-Royo A, Fagundo B, Lorenzo T, Gomis-Gonzalez M et al.. iScience, 2023-05-16

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Traditional neuropsychological tests accurately describe the current cognitive state but fall short to characterize cognitive change over multiple short time periods. We present an innovative approach to remote monitoring of executive functions on a monthly basis, which leverages the performance indicators from self-administered computerized cognitive training games (NUP-EXE). We evaluated the measurement properties of NUP-EXE in N = 56 individuals (59% women, 60-80 years) at increased risk of Alzheimer's disease ( APOE -ϵ4 carriers with subjective cognitive decline) who completed a 12-month multimodal intervention for preventing cognitive decline. NUP-EXE presented good psychometric properties and greater sensitivity to change than traditional tests. Improvements in NUP-EXE correlated with improvements in functionality and were affected by participants' age and gender. This novel data collection methodology is expected to allow a more accurate characterization of an individual's response to a cognitive decline preventive intervention and to inform development of outcome measures for a new generation of intervention trials.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Soldevila-Domenech, N., De Toma, I., Forcano, L., Diaz-Pellicer, P., Cuenca-Royo, A., Fagundo, B., et al. (2023). Intensive assessment of executive functions derived from performance in cognitive training games. iScience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106886

Vancouver

Soldevila-Domenech N, De Toma I, Forcano L, Diaz-Pellicer P, Cuenca-Royo A, Fagundo B, et al. Intensive assessment of executive functions derived from performance in cognitive training games. iScience. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106886. PMID: 37260752.

BibTeX

@article{soldeviladomenech2023-37260752,
  author  = {Soldevila-Domenech, N. and De Toma, I. and Forcano, L. and Diaz-Pellicer, P. and Cuenca-Royo, A. and Fagundo, B. and Lorenzo, T. and Gomis-Gonzalez, M. and others},
  title   = {{Intensive assessment of executive functions derived from performance in cognitive training games}},
  journal = {iScience},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.isci.2023.106886},
  pmid    = {37260752},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106886}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 29 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.29 of the 58 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (iScience)
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 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 56 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 37260752)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 29 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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 “executive-function”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “executive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →