ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022
Validation of At-Home Application of a Digital Cognitive Screener for Older Adults.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novelty-seeking and directed exploration scale with dissociable social network outcomes and brain systems in older adults.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A comparison of high performance on remote vs. in-person self- administered neuropsychological measures: the Mobile Toolbox and MyCog Mobile.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2026Article
- "Awe-scillations": EEG spectral and complexity representations of awe.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Speech-to-Text Transcription in a Digital Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The efficacy and practicality of the Neurotrack Cognitive Battery assessment for utilization in clinical settings for the identification of cognitive decline in an older Japanese population.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardized neuropsychological assessments of older adults are important for both clinical diagnosis and biobehavioral research. Over decades, in-person testing has been the basis for population normative values that rank cognitive performance by demographic status. Most recently, digital tools have enabled remote data collection for cognitive measures, which offers the significant promise to extend the basis for normative values to be more inclusive of a larger cross section of the older population. We developed a Remote Characterization Module (RCM), using a speech-to-text interface, as a novel digital tool to administer an at-home, 25-min cognitive screener that mimics eight standardized neuropsychological measures. Forty cognitively healthy participants were recruited from a longitudinal aging research cohort, and they performed the same measures of memory, attention, verbal fluency and set-shifting in both in-clinic paper-and-pencil (PAP) and at-home RCM versions. The results showed small differences, if any, for how participants performed on in-person and remote versions in five of eight tasks. Critically, robust correlations between their PAP and RCM scores across participants support the finding that remote, digital testing can provide a reliable assessment tool for rapid and remote screening of healthy older adults' cognitive performance in several key domains. The implications for digital cognitive screeners are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.