ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Streamlining eligibility assessment for Alzheimer's disease-modifying therapies: Prediction of MMSE scores using the digital clock and recall.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The eligibility of anti-amyloid disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and their integration into clinical practice in some institutions requires a specific range of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. Reliance on this pencil-and-paper psychometric instrument imposes operational burdens and risks of perpetuating health disparities, given the test's known educational and cultural biases. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR™)-a rapid, FDA-listed digital cognitive assessment-to crosswalk to MMSE scores using machine learning, thereby offering a faster, scalable, and equitable mechanism for patient triage. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from the multi-site Bio-Hermes-001 (BH) study ( Results: The machine learning model predicted MMSE scores with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2.43 in the BH test set. This error margin falls within the established test-retest reliability range of the manual MMSE itself (∼4.0-4.2 points at short inter-test intervals), providing evidence that the predicted score is of comparable precision to a repeat human administration of the MMSE. External validation in the Apheleia cohort demonstrated robust generalizability (RMSE = 2.62). In the BH held-out test set, the model showed comparable performance across Race (White RMSE = 2.46; Non-White RMSE = 2.25) and Ethnicity (Hispanic RMSE = 2.19; Non-Hispanic RMSE = 2.45), a balanced pattern also observed in the Apheleia-001 external cohort. Exploratory demographic analyses on prediction errors, including Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, yielded significant differences only for Sex and Age in Apheleia, with signed errors becoming progressively more negative (i.e., increasing under-prediction) at older ages for the latter. This scarcity of statistical differences across cohorts suggested that our predictions were fair. Discussion: Machine learning can leverage multimodal features from the DCR to accurately and equitably crosswalk to MMSE scores in support of current guidelines, transforming a time-intensive manual test into a rapid, automated assessment. By deploying this "digital triage" engine, where traditional assessments are still used for DMT eligibility, healthcare systems can streamline the identification of DMT-eligible patients, reduce specialist referral bottlenecks, and ensure that access to life-altering therapies is determined by pathology rather than demography.
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.