ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Feasibility, validity, and normative data for the remote Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery at the University of Pennsylvania Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-site video-based assessment with the NACC UDS-Version 3 battery: Design and participant experience in the V-Cog study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Trial
- Feasibility, validity, and normative data for the remote Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery at the University of Pennsylvania Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe investigated the feasibility and validity of the remotely-administered neuropsychological battery from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (UDS T-Cog).
methodsTwo hundred twenty Penn Alzheimer's Disease Research Center participants with unimpaired cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia completed the T-Cog during their annual UDS evaluation. We assessed administration feasibility and diagnostic group differences cross-sectionally across telephone versus videoconference modalities, and compared T-Cog to prior in-person UDS scores longitudinally.
resultsAdministration time averaged 54 min and 79% of participants who initiated a T-Cog completed all 12 subtests; completion time and rates differed by diagnostic group but not by modality. Performance varied expectedly across groups with moderate to strong associations between most T-Cog measures and in-person correlates, although select subtests demonstrated lower comparability. DISCUSSION: The T-Cog is feasibly administered and shows preliminary validity in a cognitively heterogeneous cohort. Normative data from this cohort should be expanded to more diverse populations to enhance utility and generalizability. Highlights: This study examined the feasibility and validity of the remote Uniform Data Set (also known as the T-Cog) and contributes key normative data for widespread use.A remote neuropsychological battery was feasibly administered with high overall engagement and completion rates, adequate reliability compared to in-person testing, and evidence of validity across diagnostic groups.Typical barriers to administration included hearing impairment, technology issues, and distractions; hearing difficulties were particularly common among cognitively impaired groups.Certain tests were less closely related to their in-person correlates and should be used with caution.
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.