Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Remote digital cognitive assessment in a trial-ready Alzheimer's disease cohort: A scalable approach for early intervention studies
Aschenbrenner AJ, Wilks H, Welhaf M, Katteri S, Stout SH, Sliwinski MJ, Benzinger TLS, Gordon B et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2026-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Early detection of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD), particularly in preclinical stages, is critical for evaluating therapeutic interventions. Traditional cognitive assessments often require lengthy in-person visits, and may therefore limit scalability for younger, trial-ready populations for primary and secondary prevention studies. We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of high-frequency remote digital cognitive assessments in individuals with autosomal dominant AD (ADAD). Methods One hundred twenty-three mutation carriers and non-carriers from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit from 20 international sites (Ages 19-66 years) completed remote assessments via personal smartphones, prompted four times daily for 7 days (≈ 3 minutes per session), and conventional in-clinic cognitive testing at baseline. Adherence, between-person reliability, test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and sensitivity to clinical disease progression were evaluated. Results Remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after just 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains. A composite of the remote tests slightly outperformed a traditional composite at separating mutation carriers from non-carriers. Average adherence to the study protocol was 42%, lower that observed in previous studies of older adults. Discussion High-frequency remote cognitive assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid in a relatively young international ADAD cohort. This approach offers substantial utility for clinical trials, including improved accessibility and enhanced reliability, supporting its integration into early-intervention studies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Aschenbrenner, A. J., Wilks, H., Welhaf, M., Katteri, S., Stout, S. H., Sliwinski, M. J., et al. (2026). Remote digital cognitive assessment in a trial-ready Alzheimer's disease cohort: A scalable approach for early intervention studies. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70311
Vancouver
Aschenbrenner AJ, Wilks H, Welhaf M, Katteri S, Stout SH, Sliwinski MJ, et al. Remote digital cognitive assessment in a trial-ready Alzheimer's disease cohort: A scalable approach for early intervention studies. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2026. doi:10.1002/trc2.70311. PMID: 42719037.
BibTeX
@article{aschenbrenner2026-42719037,
author = {Aschenbrenner, A. J. and Wilks, H. and Welhaf, M. and Katteri, S. and Stout, S. H. and Sliwinski, M. J. and Benzinger, T. L. S. and Gordon, B. and others},
title = {{Remote digital cognitive assessment in a trial-ready Alzheimer's disease cohort: A scalable approach for early intervention studies}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.70311},
pmid = {42719037},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70311}
}
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 Remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after just 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains.
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| 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 | 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 42719037) |
| 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 “remote-digital”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “remote-digital”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.