Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Re: Clarifying comparative claims in digital cognitive assessment: Assessing concurrent validity in a shared cohort
Ali Jannati, Sean Tobyne, Alvaro Pascual-Leone. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2026-05-19
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall® (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity® assessments. The assertion that our findings rely on "nonequivalent cohorts" or "outdated regulatory data" is factually incorrect; performance metrics were calculated de novo using the harmonized study dataset. Furthermore, we address the omission of the Cognivue Amyloid Risk Measure (CARM), noting that comparing a cross-validated predictive model (DCR) with a post hoc metric derived from the same dataset (CARM) would introduce significant bias due to overfitting. We conclude by highlighting how head-to-head comparisons in diverse cohorts align with the recently published Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease (CEOi) recommendations for digital cognitive assessment standards.
Key findings
- The assertion that our findings rely on "nonequivalent cohorts" or "outdated regulatory data" is factually incorrect; performance metrics were calculated de novo using the harmonized study dataset.
- Furthermore, we address the omission of the Cognivue Amyloid Risk Measure (CARM), noting that comparing a cross-validated predictive model (DCR) with a post hoc metric derived from the same dataset (CARM) would introduce significant bias due to overfitting.
- We conclude by highlighting how head-to-head comparisons in diverse cohorts align with the recently published Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease (CEOi) recommendations for digital cognitive assessment standards.
Study details
- Participants930
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 54/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 930 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 42157283) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 30 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100. |
| Total | 54 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Jannati, A., Tobyne, S., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2026). Re: Clarifying comparative claims in digital cognitive assessment: Assessing concurrent validity in a shared cohort. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-026-01987-9
Vancouver
Jannati A, Tobyne S, Pascual-Leone A. Re: Clarifying comparative claims in digital cognitive assessment: Assessing concurrent validity in a shared cohort. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2026. doi:10.1186/s13195-026-01987-9. PMID: 42157283.
BibTeX
@article{jannati2026-42157283,
author = {Jannati, Ali and Tobyne, Sean and Pascual-Leone, Alvaro},
title = {{Re: Clarifying comparative claims in digital cognitive assessment: Assessing concurrent validity in a shared cohort}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-026-01987-9},
pmid = {42157283},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-026-01987-9}
}