Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer's disease: the Altoida large cohort study
Meier IB, Buegler M, Harms R, Seixas A, Çöltekin A, Tarnanas I.. NPJ digital medicine, 2021-06-24
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Conventional neuropsychological assessments for Alzheimer's disease are burdensome and inaccurate at detecting mild cognitive impairment and predicting Alzheimer's disease risk. Altoida's Digital Neuro Signature (DNS), a longitudinal cognitive test consisting of two active digital biomarker metrics, alleviates these limitations. By comparison to conventional neuropsychological assessments, DNS results in faster evaluations (10 min vs 45-120 min), and generates higher test-retest in intraindividual assessment, as well as higher accuracy at detecting abnormal cognition. This study comparatively evaluates the performance of Altoida's DNS and conventional neuropsychological assessments in intraindividual assessments of cognition and function by means of two semi-naturalistic observational experiments with 525 participants in laboratory and clinical settings. The results show that DNS is consistently more sensitive than conventional neuropsychological assessments at capturing longitudinal individual-level change, both with respect to intraindividual variability and dispersion (intraindividual variability across multiple tests), across three participant groups: healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. Dispersion differences between DNS and conventional neuropsychological assessments were more pronounced with more advanced disease stages, and DNS-intraindividual variability was able to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease. These findings are instrumental for patient monitoring and management, remote clinical trial assessment, and timely interventions, and will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Meier, I. B., Buegler, M., Harms, R., Seixas, A., Çöltekin, A., & Tarnanas, I. (2021). Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer's disease: the Altoida large cohort study. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00470-z
Vancouver
Meier IB, Buegler M, Harms R, Seixas A, Çöltekin A, Tarnanas I. Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer's disease: the Altoida large cohort study. NPJ digital medicine. 2021. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00470-z. PMID: 34168269.
BibTeX
@article{meier2021-34168269,
author = {Meier, I. B. and Buegler, M. and Harms, R. and Seixas, A. and Çöltekin, A. and Tarnanas, I.},
title = {{Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer's disease: the Altoida large cohort study}},
journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1038/s41746-021-00470-z},
pmid = {34168269},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00470-z}
}
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
- By comparison to conventional neuropsychological assessments, DNS results in faster evaluations (10 min vs 45-120 min), and generates higher test-retest in intraindividual assessment, as well as higher accuracy at detecting abnormal cognition.
- The results show that DNS is consistently more sensitive than conventional neuropsychological assessments at capturing longitudinal individual-level change, both with respect to intraindividual variability and dispersion (intraindividual variability across multiple tests), across three participant groups: healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease.
- These findings are instrumental for patient monitoring and management, remote clinical trial assessment, and timely interventions, and will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants525
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 67/100
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. 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NPJ digital medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 525 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 | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34168269) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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.