Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Protocol for a construct and clinical validation study of MyCog Mobile: a remote smartphone-based cognitive screener for older adults
Young SR, McManus Dworak E, Byrne GJ, Jones CM, Yoshino Benavente J, Yao L, Curtis LM, Varela Diaz M et al.. BMJ open, 2024-04-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Annual cognitive screening in older adults is essential for early detection of cognitive impairment, yet primary care settings face time constraints that present barriers to routine screening. A remote cognitive screener completed on a patient's personal smartphone before a visit has the potential to save primary care clinics time, encourage broader screening practices and increase early detection of cognitive decline. MyCog Mobile is a promising new remote smartphone-based cognitive screening app for primary care settings. We propose a combined construct and clinical validation study of MyCog Mobile. Methods and analysis We will recruit a total sample of 300 adult participants aged 65 years and older. A subsample of 200 healthy adult participants and a subsample of 100 adults with a cognitive impairment diagnosis (ie, dementia, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive deficits or other memory loss) will be recruited from the general population and specialty memory care centres, respectively. To evaluate the construct validity of MyCog Mobile, the healthy control sample will self-administer MyCog Mobile on study-provided smartphones and be administered a battery of gold-standard neuropsychological assessments. We will compare correlations between performance on MyCog Mobile and measures of similar and dissimilar constructs to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. To assess clinical validity, participants in the clinical sample will self-administer MyCog Mobile on a smartphone and be administered a Mini-Cog screener and these data will be combined with the healthy control sample. We will then apply several supervised model types to determine the best predictors of cognitive impairment within the sample. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity will be the primary performance metrics for clinical validity. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University (STU00214921) approved this study protocol. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summaries provided to the study's funders.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Young, SR., McManus Dworak, E., Byrne, G. J., Jones, C. M., Yoshino Benavente, J., Yao, L., et al. (2024). Protocol for a construct and clinical validation study of MyCog Mobile: a remote smartphone-based cognitive screener for older adults. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083612
Vancouver
Young SR, McManus Dworak E, Byrne GJ, Jones CM, Yoshino Benavente J, Yao L, et al. Protocol for a construct and clinical validation study of MyCog Mobile: a remote smartphone-based cognitive screener for older adults. BMJ open. 2024. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083612. PMID: 38569699.
BibTeX
@article{young2024-38569699,
author = {Young, SR. and McManus Dworak, E. and Byrne, G. J. and Jones, C. M. and Yoshino Benavente, J. and Yao, L. and Curtis, L. M. and Varela Diaz, M. and others},
title = {{Protocol for a construct and clinical validation study of MyCog Mobile: a remote smartphone-based cognitive screener for older adults}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083612},
pmid = {38569699},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083612}
}
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
- Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summaries provided to the study's funders.
Study details
- Participants100
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| 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 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 100 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 38569699) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 “clinical-validation”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinical-validation”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.