ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of digital clock drawing test for Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are major public health concerns, requiring accurate and scalable diagnostic tools. The digital clock drawing test (dCDT) captures drawing data and enables extraction of process-related features that may improve diagnostic performance. However, existing evidence remains inconsistent, highlighting the need for a systematic synthesis to support its clinical translation. We searched Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, CNKI, and Wanfang from inception to January 8, 2026. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity. A total of 13 studies comprising 17 diagnostic tests were included, and risk of bias was notable across studies. For MCI, the standalone dCDT showed pooled sensitivity of 0.765 (95% CI: 0.683-0.832), specificity of 0.752 (95% CI: 0.673-0.817), and pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% CI: 0.790-0.856). When both standalone and augmented dCDT tests were considered for MCI, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.760 and 0.800, respectively, and the pooled AUC increased to 0.845. For AD, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of dCDT were 0.820 (95% CI: 0.721-0.889), 0.897 (95% CI: 0.860-0.923), and 0.928 (95% CI: 0.902-0.948), respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses of standalone dCDT for MCI suggested diagnostic performance appeared higher in studies employing algorithm-based approaches than in those using traditional-scoring approaches. Overall, the available evidence supports dCDT as a promising digital screening tool for cognitive impairment. Further multicenter studies and standardized protocols are needed to enhance its role in early diagnostic and clinical practice.
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.