Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28293603›Full record

ArticlemHealth2016

From battlefield to home: a mobile platform for assessing brain health.

Helaine E Resnick, Corinna E Lathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Helaine E ResnickAnthroTronix Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Corinna E LathanAnthroTronix Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive testing batteries have been used for decades to diagnose deficits associated with conditions such as head injury, age-related cognitive decline, and stroke, and they have also been used extensively for educational evaluation and planning. Cognitive testing is generally office-based, administered by professionals, uses paper and pencil testing modalities, reports results as summary scores, and is a "one shot deal" whose primary objective is to identify the presence and severity of cognitive deficit. This paper explores innovative departures from historical cognitive testing strategies and paradigms. The report explores (I) a shift from disease diagnosis in the office setting to mobile tracking of cognitive health and wellness in any setting; (II) the strength of computer-based cognitive measures and their role in facilitating development of new computational methods; and (III) using cognitive testing to inform on individual-level outcomes over time rather than dichotomous metrics at a single point in time.

Indexed as

cognitionCognitive testingcomputational methodsneuroinformatics

Identifiers

PMID28293603
PMCPMC5344163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.