Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Performance and validation of a digital memory test across the Alzheimer's disease continuum
Sofia Toniolo, Bahaaeddin Attaallah, Maria Raquel Maio, Younes Adam Tabi, Elitsa Slavkova, Verena Svenja Klar, Youssuf Saleh, Mohamad Imran Idris et al.. Brain communications, 2025-01-17
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Digital cognitive testing using online platforms has emerged as a potentially transformative tool in clinical neuroscience. In theory, it could provide a powerful means of screening for and tracking cognitive performance in people at risk of developing conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. Here we investigate whether digital metrics derived from an in-person administered, tablet-based short-term memory task-the 'What was where?' Oxford Memory Task-were able to clinically stratify patients at different points within the Alzheimer's disease continuum and to track disease progression over time. Performance of these metrics compared to traditional neuropsychological pen-and-paper screening tests of cognition was also analysed. A total of 325 people participated in this study: 49 patients with subjective cognitive decline, 57 with mild cognitive impairment, 63 with Alzheimer's disease dementia and 156 elderly healthy controls. Most digital metrics were able to discriminate between healthy controls and patients with mild cognitive impairment and between mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease patients. Some, including Absolute Localization Error, also differed significantly between patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment. Identification accuracy was the best predictor of hippocampal atrophy, performing as well as standard screening neuropsychological tests. A linear support vector model combining digital metrics achieved high accuracy and performed at par with standard testing in discriminating between elderly healthy controls and subjective cognitive decline (area under the curve 0.82) and between subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment (area under the curve 0.92), while performing worse in classifying between mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease patients (area under the curve 0.75). Memory imprecision was able to predict cognitive decline on standard cognitive tests over one year. Overall, these findings show how it might be possible to use a digital memory test in clinics and clinical trial contexts to stratify and track performance across the Alzheimer's disease continuum.
Key findings
- Performance of these metrics compared to traditional neuropsychological pen-and-paper screening tests of cognition was also analysed.
- Some, including Absolute Localization Error, also differed significantly between patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.
- Overall, these findings show how it might be possible to use a digital memory test in clinics and clinical trial contexts to stratify and track performance across the Alzheimer's disease continuum.
Study details
- Participants325
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain communications) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 325 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 39886066) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 31 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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
Toniolo, S., Attaallah, B., Maio, M. R., Tabi, Y. A., Slavkova, E., Klar, V. S., et al. (2025). Performance and validation of a digital memory test across the Alzheimer's disease continuum. Brain communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf024
Vancouver
Toniolo S, Attaallah B, Maio MR, Tabi YA, Slavkova E, Klar VS, et al. Performance and validation of a digital memory test across the Alzheimer's disease continuum. Brain communications. 2025. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaf024. PMID: 39886066.
BibTeX
@article{toniolo2025-39886066,
author = {Toniolo, Sofia and Attaallah, Bahaaeddin and Maio, Maria Raquel and Tabi, Younes Adam and Slavkova, Elitsa and Klar, Verena Svenja and Saleh, Youssuf and Idris, Mohamad Imran and others},
title = {{Performance and validation of a digital memory test across the Alzheimer's disease continuum}},
journal = {Brain communications},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1093/braincomms/fcaf024},
pmid = {39886066},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf024}
}
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.