This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). RoCA achieved sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.80-1.0; P<.001). This was robust to multiple control analyses. Approximately 83% (16/19) of the patient respondents reported RoCA as highly intuitive, with 95% (18/19) perceiving it as adding value to their care. RoCA may act as a simple and highly scalable digital cognitive screening examination. However, due to the limitations of this study, further work is required to evaluate the ability of RoCA to be generalizable across patient populations, assess its performance in an entirely remote manner, and analyze the effect of digital literacy.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Howard, C., Johnson, A. M., Peedicail, J. S., & Ng, M. (2025). The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/66735

Vancouver

Howard C, Johnson AM, Peedicail JS, Ng M. The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2025. doi:10.2196/66735. PMID: 40536945.

BibTeX

@article{howard2025-40536945,
  author  = {Howard, Calvin and Johnson, Amy M and Peedicail, Joseph Samuel and Ng, Marcus},
  title   = {{The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study}},
  journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.2196/66735},
  pmid    = {40536945},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2196/66735}
}

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

RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001).
RoCA achieved sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.80-1.0; P<.001).
This was robust to multiple control analyses.
Approximately 83% (16/19) of the patient respondents reported RoCA as highly intuitive, with 95% (18/19) perceiving it as adding value to their care.
RoCA may act as a simple and highly scalable digital cognitive screening examination.

Why it matters

This open-label study found that a rapid online cognitive assessment classified patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests. It is a small study and further work is required to evaluate generalizability; it does not test a treatment or cure.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Study designopen-label trial
Participants35
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Medical Internet Research)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Journal of Medical Internet Research: journal h-index 286 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “open-label trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	35 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	1 / 4	Last-listed author Marcus Ng: h-index 16 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 3 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40536945)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	41 / 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).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

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 “mini-mental”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mini-mental”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →