Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35721797›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022

Feasibility of Digital Memory Assessments in an Unsupervised and Remote Study Setting.

David Berron, Gabriel Ziegler, Paula Vieweg, Ornella Billette, Jeremie Güsten, Xenia Grande, Michael T Heneka, Anja Schneider, Stefan Teipel, Frank Jessen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. REAL AD-Validation of a realistic screening approach for early Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

12 authors.

David BerronGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Gabriel ZieglerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Paula ViewegGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Ornella BilletteGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Jeremie GüstenGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Xenia GrandeGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
Michael T HenekaGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany.
Anja SchneiderGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany.
Stefan TeipelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Frank JessenGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany.
Michael WagnerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany.
Emrah DüzelGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensitive and frequent digital remote memory assessments via mobile devices hold the promise to facilitate the detection of cognitive impairment and decline. However, in order to be successful at scale, cognitive tests need to be applicable in unsupervised settings and confounding factors need to be understood. This study explored the feasibility of completely unsupervised digital cognitive assessments using three novel memory tasks in a Citizen Science project across Germany. To that end, the study aimed to identify factors associated with stronger participant retention, to examine test-retest reliability and the extent of practice effects, as well as to investigate the influence of uncontrolled settings such as time of day, delay between sessions or screen size on memory performance. A total of 1,407 adults (aged 18-89) participated in the study for up to 12 weeks, completing weekly memory tasks in addition to short questionnaires regarding sleep duration, subjective cognitive complaints as well as cold symptoms. Participation across memory tasks was pseudorandomized such that individuals were assigned to one of three memory paradigms resulting in three otherwise identical sub-studies. One hundred thirty-eight participants contributed to two of the three paradigms. Critically, for each memory task 12 independent parallel test sets were used to minimize effects of repeated testing. First, we observed a mean participant retention time of 44 days, or 4 active test sessions, and 77.5% compliance to the study protocol in an unsupervised setting with no contact between participants and study personnel, payment or feedback. We identified subject-level factors that contributed to higher retention times. Second, we found minor practice effects associated with repeated cognitive testing, and reveal evidence for acceptable-to-good retest reliability of mobile testing. Third, we show that memory performance assessed through repeated digital assessments was strongly associated with age in all paradigms, and individuals with subjectively reported cognitive decline presented lower mnemonic discrimination accuracy compared to non-complaining participants. Finally, we identified design-related factors that need to be incorporated in future studies such as the time delay between test sessions. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of fully unsupervised digital remote memory assessments and identify critical factors to account for in future studies.

Indexed as

digital cognitive assessmentepisodic memoryparticipant retentionremote and unsupervised cognitive assessmentsmartphone-based cognitive assessments

Identifiers

PMID35721797
PMCPMC9199443

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.