ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025
Validation of ReadSmart4U: An Automated Tool for Neuropsychological Assessment Reporting.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeuropsychological assessments are critical to cognitive care, but are time-consuming and often of variable quality. Automated tools, such as ReadSmart4U, improve report quality and consistency while meeting the growing demand for cognitive assessments.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analysed 150 neuropsychological assessments stratified by cognitive diagnosis (normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease) from the Clinical Data Warehouse of a university-affiliated referral hospital (2010-2020). Reports were generated for each assessment by ReadSmart4U and certified clinical psychologists (CCPs). Three blinded CCPs assessed report quality using the Integrated Scoring for Quality Assessment of Structure (ISQAS) for absolute quality and the Integrated Scoring for Quality Comparison of Superiority (ISQCS) for paired comparisons. Domains assessed included terminology accuracy, interpretation accuracy, usefulness and writing quality.
resultsReadSmart4U-generated reports outperformed CCP reports in all ISQAS domains, with mean overall quality scores of 87.3 ± 3.4 vs. 74.5 ± 6.7 (
conclusionReadSmart4U significantly improves the quality and consistency of neuropsychological assessment reports compared to CCPs, reducing workload and supporting the integration of automated tools into clinical workflows to improve cognitive care.
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.