Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40424609›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Smartphone- and Tablet-Based Tools to Assess Cognition in Individuals With Preclinical Alzheimer Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Scoping Review.

Rosanne L van den Berg, Sophie M van der Landen, Matthijs J Keijzer, Aniek M van Gils, Maureen van Dam, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Roos J Jutten, John E Harrison, Casper de Boer, Wiesje M van der Flier and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Clinical validation of a voice-based AI tool for screening cognitive impairment: a prospective multicenter study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rosanne L van den BergAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0685-9074
Sophie M van der LandenAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6844-0861
Matthijs J KeijzerAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3204-3657
Aniek M van GilsAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0669-2584
Maureen van DamAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4639-5138
Kirsten A ZiesemerMedical Library, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7783-1126
Roos J JuttenAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3712-4790
John E HarrisonAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-4923
Casper de BoerAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6002-0749
Wiesje M van der FlierAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8766-6224
Sietske Am SikkesAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0161-3656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of cognitive decline in the earliest stages of Alzheimer disease (AD) is important but challenging. AD is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by gradual cognitive decline. Disease stages range from preclinical AD, in which individuals are cognitively unimpaired, to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Digital technologies promise to enable detection of early, subtle cognitive changes. Although the field of digital cognitive biomarkers is rapidly evolving, a comprehensive overview of the reporting of psychometric properties (ie, validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical meaningfulness) is missing. Insight into the extent to which these properties are evaluated is needed to identify the validation steps toward implementation.

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify the reporting on quality characteristics of smartphone- and tablet-based cognitive tools with potential for remote administration in individuals with preclinical AD or MCI. We focused on both psychometric properties and practical tool characteristics.

methodsThis scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. In total, 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched from January 1, 2008, to January 5, 2023. Studies were included that assessed the psychometric properties of cognitive smartphone- or tablet-based tools with potential for remote administration in individuals with preclinical AD or MCI. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts in ASReview, a screening tool that combines manual and automatic screening using an active learning algorithm. Thereafter, we manually screened full texts in the web application Rayyan. For each included study, 2 reviewers independently explored the reported information on practical and psychometric properties. For each psychometric property, examples were provided narratively.

resultsIn total, 11,300 deduplicated studies were identified in the search. After screening, 50 studies describing 37 different digital tools were included in this review. Average administration time was 13.8 (SD 10.1; range 1-32) minutes, but for 38% (14/37) of the tools, this was not described. Most tools (31/37, 84%) were examined in 1 language. The investigated populations were mainly individuals with MCI (34/37, 92%), and fewer tools were examined in individuals with preclinical AD (8/37, 22%). For almost all tools (36/37, 97%), construct validity was assessed through evaluation of clinical or biological associations or relevant group differences. For a small number of tools, information on structural validity (3/37, 8%), test-retest reliability (12/37, 32%), responsiveness (6/37, 16%), or clinical meaningfulness (0%) was reported.

conclusionsNumerous smartphone- and tablet-based tools to assess cognition in early AD are being developed, whereas studies concerning their psychometric properties are limited. Often, initial validation steps have been taken, yet further validation and careful selection of psychometrically valid outcome scores are required to demonstrate clinical usefulness with regard to the context of use, which is essential for implementation.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionComputers, HandheldSmartphoneCognitionHumansPsychometricscognitiondigital biomarkersdigital healthmild cognitive impairmentpreclinical Alzheimer diseasepsychometricsscoping reviewsmartphone-based assessmenttablet-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID40424609
PMCPMC12152440

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.