ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2026
Evaluating digital cognitive tests for clinical use in Alzheimer's disease: A novel framework and scoping review.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 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
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
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains undiagnosed in > 90% of individuals, delaying access to timely evaluation and interventions. Self-administered digital cognitive assessments (SA-DCAs) offer scalable approaches for early detection, yet their real-world validation and clinical readiness remain uncertain. We developed a use-case-specific framework to evaluate SA-DCAs intended for community and primary-care MCI screening and applied it to a comprehensive scoping review of published evidence (2012-2025). Among 79 identified SA-DCAs, only four tools met predefined framework criteria across nine eligible studies. Common limitations included restricted population representativeness, inconsistent diagnostic performance reporting, limited biomarker anchoring, and reliance on prefiltered cohorts. Overall, the current evidence base is methodologically heterogeneous and incomplete for clinical deployment. The proposed framework characterizes requirements including anchoring strength, prevalence-adjusted performance reporting, and representative sampling establishing a foundation for advancing robust real-world evidence needed to translate SA-DCAs from research to clinical practice.
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.