Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35436212›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

A Computerized Cognitive Test Battery for Detection of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Instrument Validation Study.

Siao Ye, Kevin Sun, Duong Huynh, Huy Q Phi, Brian Ko, Bin Huang, Reza Hosseini Ghomi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Cognitive Trajectories After Hospitalization for COVID-19: A 36-Month Longitudinal Study.The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors.

Siao YeDepartment of Biosciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7047-0206
Kevin SunBrainCheck, Inc, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0639-3258
Duong HuynhBrainCheck, Inc, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3829-461X
Huy Q PhiClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3705-9850
Brian KoDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5197-3767
Bin HuangBrainCheck, Inc, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0056-1794
Reza Hosseini GhomiBrainCheck, Inc, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-8237

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly detection of dementia is critical for intervention and care planning but remains difficult. Computerized cognitive testing provides an accessible and promising solution to address these current challenges.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate a computerized cognitive testing battery (BrainCheck) for its diagnostic accuracy and ability to distinguish the severity of cognitive impairment.

methodsA total of 99 participants diagnosed with dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or normal cognition (NC) completed the BrainCheck battery. Statistical analyses compared participant performances on BrainCheck based on their diagnostic group.

resultsBrainCheck battery performance showed significant differences between the NC, MCI, and dementia groups, achieving 88% or higher sensitivity and specificity (ie, true positive and true negative rates) for separating dementia from NC, and 77% or higher sensitivity and specificity in separating the MCI group from the NC and dementia groups. Three-group classification found true positive rates of 80% or higher for the NC and dementia groups and true positive rates of 64% or higher for the MCI group.

conclusionsBrainCheck was able to distinguish between diagnoses of dementia, MCI, and NC, providing a potentially reliable tool for early detection of cognitive impairment.

Indexed as

cognitive declinecognitive testdementiadiscriminant analysismild cognitive impairmentrepeatable battery

Identifiers

PMID35436212
PMCPMC9055476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.