Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools
S W Lee, Sooah Jang, Eosu Kim, Sang Joon Son, Woo Jung Kim, San Lee, Chang Hyung Hong, Hyun Woong Roh et al.. Innovation in Aging, 2025-12-23
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments. Its AUC values were comparable to those of the MoCA, MMSE, and most SNSB subdomains except for attention, where VARABOM.D demonstrated greater discriminative ability. SSQ scores remained stable across pre- and post-VR sessions in both study groups, underscoring the VR platform's safety and feasibility. Discussion and VARABOM.D demonstrated accuracy comparable to traditional cognitive assessments and even outperformed the attention subdomain of SNSB. Additionally, no adverse reactions were observed in the normal or MCI groups, further emphasizing the safety and stability of VARABOM.D.
Key findings
- VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments.
- Its AUC values were comparable to those of the MoCA, MMSE, and most SNSB subdomains except for attention, where VARABOM.D demonstrated greater discriminative ability.
- SSQ scores remained stable across pre- and post-VR sessions in both study groups, underscoring the VR platform's safety and feasibility.
- Discussion and VARABOM.D demonstrated accuracy comparable to traditional cognitive assessments and even outperformed the attention subdomain of SNSB.
- Additionally, no adverse reactions were observed in the normal or MCI groups, further emphasizing the safety and stability of VARABOM.D.
Why it matters
This study found that a virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tool had accuracy comparable to traditional assessments and was safe and feasible. It is about improving cognitive screening, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 32/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 31 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 32 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Innovation in Aging) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Innovation in Aging: journal h-index 48 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Jooyoung Oh holds only 7 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Yonsei University: institution h-index 777 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42170679) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 32 out of 100. |
| Total | 32 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igaf150
- PubMed: 42170679
- Original source →
- Free full text: Innovation in Aging →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Lee, S. W., Jang, S., Kim, E., Son, S. J., Kim, W. J., Lee, S., et al. (2025). Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools. Innovation in Aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf150
Vancouver
Lee SW, Jang S, Kim E, Son SJ, Kim WJ, Lee S, et al. Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools. Innovation in Aging. 2025. doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf150. PMID: 42170679.
BibTeX
@article{lee2025-42170679,
author = {Lee, S W and Jang, Sooah and Kim, Eosu and Son, Sang Joon and Kim, Woo Jung and Lee, San and Hong, Chang Hyung and Roh, Hyun Woong and others},
title = {{Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools}},
journal = {Innovation in Aging},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1093/geroni/igaf150},
pmid = {42170679},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf150}
}
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 “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.