ReviewDigital health
Digital tools and biomarkers for cognitive screening: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare three major types of digital cognitive assessment tools-digitized traditional tests, newly developed digital tools, and digital biomarkers. It also explored their validity, feasibility, and potential integration into community-based healthcare, along with clinical utility and implementation challenges. Methods: A search of nine electronic databases (July 2024) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those reporting diagnostic accuracy and practical application of digital cognitive assessment tools or biomarkers. Data were narratively synthesized, and diagnostic accuracy metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024564512). Results: A total of 48 studies involving older adults with or at risk of cognitive impairment were included. These studies evaluated digital cognitive tools or biomarkers and reported diagnostic performance comparison with established tests or clinical diagnosis across clinical, community, and home settings. Approaches were categorized into digitized traditional tests (AUC: 0.65-1.0), newly developed digital cognitive tools (AUC: 0.75-0.94), and digital biomarkers (AUC: 0.59-0.95). Although diagnostic accuracy was generally promising, most studies were conducted in controlled settings with limited longitudinal or real-world validation. Evidence supporting the role of community-based healthcare professionals, such as nurses, remains limited; however, self-administered and remote assessments indicate potential for future community-based implementation. Future validation in real-world, community-based settings is essential before widespread implementation. Conclusions: Digital cognitive assessments and biomarkers offer valuable opportunities to enhance early screening and continuous monitoring of cognitive impairment. Based on these findings, we suggest that selection between digitized traditional tests and newly developed tools should be tailored to specific context, with digital biomarkers serving as complementary tools to strengthen cognitive assessment, particularly in community-based nursing practice. Policymakers and healthcare organizations should establish guidelines to safe and effective adoption of digital cognitive tools in community and clinical settings.
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.