Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
MemScreen: A smartphone application for detection of mild cognitive impairment: A validation study: Smartphone App for MCI Detection
Dumurgier J, Paquet C, Hugon J, Planche V, Gaubert S, Epelbaum S, Bombois S, Teichmann M et al.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2025-01-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background and objectives Primary care is often the first point of contact for patients with cognitive complaints, making initial cognitive screening an essential step to avoid delays in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) at an early stage. We developed MemScreen, a self-administered smartphone application that assesses overall cognition and verbal memory, and evaluated its ability to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in both general and clinical populations. Methods We conducted two validation cohort studies: (1) UK-based Whitehall II cohort study (13th wave, 2018-2022) involving a general population (MCI defined by poor performance on a global cognitive score), and (2) five French memory clinics involving patients without dementia (amnestic MCI defined by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test). MemScreen, MMSE, and TMT-A effectiveness was assessed using Area Under the Curve (AUC) values from unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. Results In Whitehall II (n = 2118, mean age 75.9 years, 23.9 % women, 14.5 % MCI), median MemScreen completion time was 4 min 18 s. MemScreen had the highest AUC (0.87; 95 % CI: 0.82-0.89) for distinguishing MCI, outperforming MMSE (AUC = 0.79; 0.76-0.82; p = 0.018) and TMT-A (AUC = 0.77; 0.74-0.80; p = 0.023). MemScreen sensitivity and specificity were 78.6 % and 78.7 %, respectively. In memory clinics (n = 303, mean age 70.5 years, 53 % women, 46.9 % amnestic MCI), median completion time was 5 min 17 s. MemScreen showed superior performance (AUC = 0.87; 0.83-0.91) compared to MMSE (AUC = 0.72; 0.67-0.78; p < 0.001) and TMT-A (AUC = 0.63; 0.56-0.69; p < 0.001), with 93.0 % sensitivity and 54.0 % specificity for amnestic MCI. Discussion MemScreen outperformed traditional tests in identifying MCI in both general and clinical populations. Its self-administration and short completion time suggest potential as an effective screening tool to optimize memory clinic referrals for AD diagnosis and treatment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dumurgier, J., Paquet, C., Hugon, J., Planche, V., Gaubert, S., Epelbaum, S., et al. (2025). MemScreen: A smartphone application for detection of mild cognitive impairment: A validation study: Smartphone App for MCI Detection. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100077
Vancouver
Dumurgier J, Paquet C, Hugon J, Planche V, Gaubert S, Epelbaum S, et al. MemScreen: A smartphone application for detection of mild cognitive impairment: A validation study: Smartphone App for MCI Detection. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100077. PMID: 39880699.
BibTeX
@article{dumurgier2025-39880699,
author = {Dumurgier, J. and Paquet, C. and Hugon, J. and Planche, V. and Gaubert, S. and Epelbaum, S. and Bombois, S. and Teichmann, M. and others},
title = {{MemScreen: A smartphone application for detection of mild cognitive impairment: A validation study: Smartphone App for MCI Detection}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100077},
pmid = {39880699},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100077}
}
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
- We developed MemScreen, a self-administered smartphone application that assesses overall cognition and verbal memory, and evaluated its ability to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in both general and clinical populations.
- Results In Whitehall II (n = 2118, mean age 75.9 years, 23.9 % women, 14.5 % MCI), median MemScreen completion time was 4 min 18 s.
- MemScreen showed superior performance (AUC = 0.87; 0.83-0.91) compared to MMSE (AUC = 0.72; 0.67-0.78; p < 0.001) and TMT-A (AUC = 0.63; 0.56-0.69; p < 0.001), with 93.0 % sensitivity and 54.0 % specificity for amnestic MCI.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants2,118
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.79; AUC = 0.77; AUC = 0.87
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| 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 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,118 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 39880699) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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 “smartphone-application”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “smartphone-application”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.