ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Comparing psychometric characteristics of a computerized cognitive test (BrainCheck Assess) against the Montreal cognitive assessment.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Trajectories After Hospitalization for COVID-19: A 36-Month Longitudinal Study.The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Longitudinal trajectories of neurologic symptoms and cognitive associations at 36-months post-hospitalization for COVID-19.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Observational
- Reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive assessments: preliminary validation study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Associations between physical activity, glucose variability, and cognitive function in older adults with type 2 diabetes.Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous validation studies demonstrated that BrainCheck Assess (BC-Assess), a computerized cognitive test battery, can reliably and sensitively distinguish individuals with different levels of cognitive impairment (i.e., normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia). Compared with other traditional paper-based cognitive screening instruments commonly used in clinical practice, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is generally accepted to be among the most comprehensive and robust screening tools, with high sensitivity/specificity in distinguishing MCI from NC and dementia. In this study, we examined: (1) the linear relationship between BC-Assess and MoCA and their equivalent cut-off scores, and (2) the extent to which they agree on their impressions of an individual's cognitive status. Methods: A subset of participants ( Results: A high Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.77 (CI = 0.63-0.86) was observed between the two scores. According to this relationship, MoCA cutoffs of 26 and 19 correspond to BC-Assess scores of 89.6 and 68.5, respectively. These scores are highly consistent with the currently recommended BC-Assess cutoffs (i.e., 85 and 70). The two instruments also show a high degree of agreement in their impressions based on their recommended cut-offs: (i) OA = 70.9%, PPA = 70.4%, NPA = 71.4% for differentiating dementia from MCI/NC; (ii) OA = 83.6%, PPA = 84.1%, NPA = 81.8% for differentiating dementia/MCI from NC. Discussion: This study provides further validation of BC-Assess in a sample of older adults by showing its high correlation and agreement in impression with the widely used MoCA.
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.