Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Ignite app detects early cognitive impairment and tracks disease severity in genetic frontotemporal dementia
Convery RS, Adams-Carr K, Russell LL, Blesius A, Goldsmith S, Farley S, Ferry-Bolder E, Bouzigues A et al.. Research Square, 2026-08-03
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Results Ignite detected significant cognitive impairment in all symptomatic mutation carriers (CDR = 1 and CDR ≥ 2) across all six cognitive domains compared with non-carriers ( p < 0.001). Prodromal mutation carriers (CDR = 0.5) showed impairments in all domains except social cognition, while asymptomatic carriers (CDR = 0) demonstrated reduced performance in executive function, social cognition, and calculation ( p < 0.05). C9orf72 mutation carriers showed the earliest and broadest deficits across all cognitive domains, MAPT carriers exhibited pronounced impairments in semantic knowledge and social cognition, and GRN carriers demonstrated marked deficits in executive function and processing speed, particularly at symptomatic stages. ROC analyses demonstrated similarly good discrimination for Ignite and GENFI neuropsychology between symptomatic carriers and non-carriers across all cognitive domains (AUCs 0.91–0.92 for Ignite vs 0.89–0.93 for GENFI). Conclusions Ignite is a sensitive digital cognitive assessment capable of detecting early cognitive changes in genetic FTD and demonstrates improved discrimination compared with standard neuropsychological measures at milder disease severity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Convery, R. S., Adams-Carr, K., Russell, L. L., Blesius, A., Goldsmith, S., Farley, S., et al. (2026). The Ignite app detects early cognitive impairment and tracks disease severity in genetic frontotemporal dementia. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10304180/v1
Vancouver
Convery RS, Adams-Carr K, Russell LL, Blesius A, Goldsmith S, Farley S, et al. The Ignite app detects early cognitive impairment and tracks disease severity in genetic frontotemporal dementia. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10304180/v1.
BibTeX
@article{convery2026-51305e03,
author = {Convery, R. S. and Adams-Carr, K. and Russell, L. L. and Blesius, A. and Goldsmith, S. and Farley, S. and Ferry-Bolder, E. and Bouzigues, A. and others},
title = {{The Ignite app detects early cognitive impairment and tracks disease severity in genetic frontotemporal dementia}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10304180/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10304180/v1}
}
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 Ignite detected significant cognitive impairment in all symptomatic mutation carriers (CDR = 1 and CDR ≥ 2) across all six cognitive domains compared with non-carriers ( p < 0.001).
- Prodromal mutation carriers (CDR = 0.5) showed impairments in all domains except social cognition, while asymptomatic carriers (CDR = 0) demonstrated reduced performance in executive function, social cognition, and calculation ( p < 0.05).
- C9orf72 mutation carriers showed the earliest and broadest deficits across all cognitive domains, MAPT carriers exhibited pronounced impairments in semantic knowledge and social cognition, and GRN carriers demonstrated marked deficits in executive function and processing speed, particularly at symptomatic stages.
- ROC analyses demonstrated similarly good discrimination for Ignite and GENFI neuropsychology between symptomatic carriers and non-carriers across all cognitive domains (AUCs 0.91–0.92 for Ignite vs 0.89–0.93 for GENFI).
- Conclusions Ignite is a sensitive digital cognitive assessment capable of detecting early cognitive changes in genetic FTD and demonstrates improved discrimination compared with standard neuropsychological measures at milder disease severity.
Study details
- Participants190
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 29 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 18 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 190 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 18 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 18 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100. |
| Total | 29 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
101 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.