Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early‐onset Alzheimer's disease
Wepnyu Yembe Njamnshi, Konstantinos Chiotis, Elena Tsoy, Ganna Blazhenets, Piyush Maiti, Jiaxiuxiu Zhang, Isabel Elaine Allen, Salma Rocha et al.. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2025-12-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen-and-paper tests. Match was the most accurate TabCAT test in differentiating among clinical groups (controls vs. MCI vs. dementia) and predicting amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity in clinically impaired participants. TabCAT tests were associated with regional tau PET patterns. TabCAT digital measures have promise for frontline identification of patients with EOAD. HIGHLIGHTS: Four hundred seventy-five participants from 16 US sites underwent tablet-based cognitive assessment. Digital tests assessed executive function and visuospatial abilities. Digital tests correlated with traditional pen-and-paper cognitive tests. Match (test of executive function) differentiated clinical groups. Digital tests were associated with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) status and regional tau PET patterns.
Key findings
- TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen-and-paper tests.
- Match was the most accurate TabCAT test in differentiating among clinical groups (controls vs.
- MCI vs. dementia) and predicting amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity in clinically impaired participants.
- TabCAT tests were associated with regional tau PET patterns.
- TabCAT digital measures have promise for frontline identification of patients with EOAD.
Why it matters
This multisite study found that tablet-based cognitive tests correlated with traditional pen-and-paper tests and were associated with amyloid and tau PET patterns in early-onset Alzheimer's disease. It is about digital cognitive assessment for identification, not treatment or cure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants146
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 146 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 | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 1 / 6 | Cited 0.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Renaud La Joie: h-index 73 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 33 institution(s) in 3 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41395729) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Njamnshi, W. Y., Chiotis, K., Tsoy, E., Blazhenets, G., Maiti, P., Zhang, J., et al. (2025). Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early‐onset Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71012
Vancouver
Njamnshi WY, Chiotis K, Tsoy E, Blazhenets G, Maiti P, Zhang J, et al. Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early‐onset Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.71012. PMID: 41395729.
BibTeX
@article{njamnshi2025-41395729,
author = {Njamnshi, Wepnyu Yembe and Chiotis, Konstantinos and Tsoy, Elena and Blazhenets, Ganna and Maiti, Piyush and Zhang, Jiaxiuxiu and Allen, Isabel Elaine and Rocha, Salma and others},
title = {{Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early‐onset Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz.71012},
pmid = {41395729},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71012}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.