Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The development and validation of a digital biomarker for remote assessment of Alzheimer's diseases risk
Joe Butler, Tamlyn J Watermeyer, Ellie Matterson, Emily G Harper, Mario Parra-Rodriguez. Digital health, 2024-01-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions. These results indicate the VSTMBT can provide reliable data when self-administered at-home using an online version of the task and on a personal device. This finding has important implications for remote screening and monitoring practices of older adults, as well as supporting clinical practices serving diverse patient communities. Future work will assess remote administration in older adults with cognitive impairment and diverse socio-economic and ethno-cultural backgrounds as well as a bench-to-bedside application.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Butler, J., Watermeyer, T. J., Matterson, E., Harper, E. G., & Parra-Rodriguez, M. (2024). The development and validation of a digital biomarker for remote assessment of Alzheimer's diseases risk. Digital health. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241228416
Vancouver
Butler J, Watermeyer TJ, Matterson E, Harper EG, Parra-Rodriguez M. The development and validation of a digital biomarker for remote assessment of Alzheimer's diseases risk. Digital health. 2024. doi:10.1177/20552076241228416. PMID: 38269369.
BibTeX
@article{butler2024-38269369,
author = {Butler, Joe and Watermeyer, Tamlyn J and Matterson, Ellie and Harper, Emily G and Parra-Rodriguez, Mario},
title = {{The development and validation of a digital biomarker for remote assessment of Alzheimer's diseases risk}},
journal = {Digital health},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1177/20552076241228416},
pmid = {38269369},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241228416}
}
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.
Key findings
- ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions.
- These results indicate the VSTMBT can provide reliable data when self-administered at-home using an online version of the task and on a personal device.
- This finding has important implications for remote screening and monitoring practices of older adults, as well as supporting clinical practices serving diverse patient communities.
- Future work will assess remote administration in older adults with cognitive impairment and diverse socio-economic and ethno-cultural backgrounds as well as a bench-to-bedside application.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Digital health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 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 38269369) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.