alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis

Validation of the self-test computerised PROTECT Cognitive Test System for detection of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment

Corbett A, Giske KI, Palmer A, Sander M, Davis C, Stych K, O’Leary M, Hayman V et al.. medRxiv, 2026-07-27

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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Detection and characterisation of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is essential for diagnosis and to support recruitment of patients into trials of disease-targeted therapies. Computerised systems offer a means of improving detection in community and primary care settings in a scalable way. This study presents further validation of the self-test PROTECT Cognitive Test System of eight assessments of memory, attention and executive function in 36,941 participants (35,822 healthy, 1046 MCI, 73 dementia). PROTECT shows robust separation of dementia and non-dementia participants ( p < 0.001), and good discriminative ability for dementia (Area Under the Curve = 0.966) with 90.90% sensitivity and 87.80% specificity. An optimised detection algorithm robustly identified MCI (P<0.001) and predicted 24-month decline across cognitive domains in both amnestic MCI and non-amnestic MCI phenotypes compared with healthy controls. PROTECT cognitive data also correlated strongly with the plasma biomarkers p-tau217 and Neurofilament Light ( n = 46). The system provides a means of improving dementia and MCI detection using self-testing, offering a scalable triage and monitoring tool for clinical pathways and trials.

Key findings

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

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 21 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 34 of 100. Raw total 34 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 34 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 34 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design 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 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv)
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 1 / 4 46 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 21 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100.
Total 34 / 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.

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

Corbett, A., Giske, K. I., Palmer, A., Sander, M., Davis, C., Stych, K., et al. (2026). Validation of the self-test computerised PROTECT Cognitive Test System for detection of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.23.26358814

Vancouver

Corbett A, Giske KI, Palmer A, Sander M, Davis C, Stych K, et al. Validation of the self-test computerised PROTECT Cognitive Test System for detection of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.23.26358814.

BibTeX

@article{corbett2026-5148408c,
  author  = {Corbett, A. and Giske, K. I. and Palmer, A. and Sander, M. and Davis, C. and Stych, K. and O’Leary, M. and Hayman, V. and others},
  title   = {{Validation of the self-test computerised PROTECT Cognitive Test System for detection of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
  journal = {medRxiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.07.23.26358814},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.23.26358814}
}

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

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.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →