ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2024
Remote assessment of the Penn computerised neurocognitive battery in individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Schizophrenia Spectrum Biomarkers Consortium: Establishment of a Biorepository for the Discovery of Quantitative Fluid Biomarkers.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Cross-Dimensional Screening Protocol for Remote Phenotyping Applied to Individuals With 3q29 Deletion Syndrome.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Neurocognitive profiles of 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 deletions and duplications.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurocognitive functioning is an integral phenotype of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome relating to severity of psychopathology and outcomes. A neurocognitive battery that could be administered remotely to assess multiple cognitive domains would be especially beneficial to research on rare genetic variants, where in-person assessment can be unavailable or burdensome. The current study compares in-person and remote assessments of the Penn computerised neurocognitive battery (CNB).
methodsParticipants (mean age = 17.82, SD = 6.94 years; 48% female) completed the CNB either in-person at a laboratory (n = 222) or remotely (n = 162).
resultsResults show that accuracy of CNB performance was equivalent across the two testing locations, while slight differences in speed were detected in 3 of the 11 tasks.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the CNB can be used in remote settings to assess multiple neurocognitive domains.
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.