Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Tablet-based cognitive assessment in a multisite study of early-onset AD: association with pen-and-paper tests and PET measures of amyloid and tau
Njamnshi WY, Chiotis K, Tsoy E, et al.. Alzheimer's & Dementia (AAIC 2025 conference abstract), 2025
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Researchers tested whether a tablet-based cognitive test (TabCAT) could substitute for traditional paper-and-pencil memory tests in people with early-onset Alzheimer's. Scores on the tablet's attention/executive tasks correlated strongly (above 0.7) with standard tests like the MMSE and MoCA, and one subtest could distinguish people with amyloid plaques from those without with good accuracy (AUC 0.82). This supports using quicker digital tools for early detection, especially in younger-onset patients who are often screened later.
Key findings
- 475 participants across 16 sites; 83 unimpaired, 146 MCI, 246 mild dementia (per associated TabCAT/LEADS abstract)
- Match and Flanker tablet tests correlated with MMSE, MoCA, and Trails A at r > 0.7
- Visuospatial tablet tasks correlated (r > 0.4) with Benson Figure Copy and Trails A
- Match test best discriminated amyloid-positive from amyloid-negative patients, AUC = 0.82
- Tablet measures also tracked with tau-PET signal in frontal/parietal cortex in amyloid-positive patients
Why it matters
Researchers tested whether a tablet-based cognitive test could substitute for traditional paper-and-pencil memory tests in people with early-onset Alzheimer's and found that scores on the tablet's attention/executive tasks correlated strongly with standard tests like the MMSE and MoCA. One subtest could distinguish people with amyloid plaques from those without with good accuracy, supporting use of quicker digital tools for early detection.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants475
- Effect sizer > 0.7 (Match/Flanker vs MMSE, MoCA, Trails A); AUC = 0.82 (Match test discriminating amyloid-positive vs amyloid-negative)
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
Data presented as a conference abstract/poster (AAIC 2025), not yet a full peer-reviewed paper with complete methods; cross-sectional design cannot show whether the tool predicts future decline; sample restricted to early-onset AD, so results may not generalize to typical late-onset AD.
How this study scored 16/100
Conference abstract — not peer-reviewed. It scored 36 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, 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 24 of the 66 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's & Dementia (AAIC 2025 conference abstract)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 3 / 10 | Conference abstract — not peer-reviewed. Journal string identifies this as a conference abstract or presentation. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 475 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 66 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 66 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. 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
Njamnshi, W. Y., Chiotis, K., Tsoy, E., et al. (2025). Tablet-based cognitive assessment in a multisite study of early-onset AD: association with pen-and-paper tests and PET measures of amyloid and tau. Alzheimer's & Dementia (AAIC 2025 conference abstract).
Vancouver
Njamnshi WY, Chiotis K, Tsoy E, et al. Tablet-based cognitive assessment in a multisite study of early-onset AD: association with pen-and-paper tests and PET measures of amyloid and tau. Alzheimer's & Dementia (AAIC 2025 conference abstract). 2025.
BibTeX
@article{njamnshi2025-b808c263,
author = {Njamnshi, W. Y. and Chiotis, K. and Tsoy, E. and others},
title = {{Tablet-based cognitive assessment in a multisite study of early-onset AD: association with pen-and-paper tests and PET measures of amyloid and tau}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& Dementia (AAIC 2025 conference abstract)},
year = {2025}
}
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.