ArticleDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders2026
Tablet-Based Assessment of Picture Naming in Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: An Accessible and Effective Tool for Distinguishing Mild Cognitive Impairment from Normal Aging.
Article in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Effective mild cognitive impairment (MCI) screening requires accessible testing. This study compared two tests for distinguishing MCI patients from controls: rapid automatized naming (RAN) for naming speed and low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA) for sensitivity to low-contrast letters.
methodsTwo RAN tasks were used: the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES, picture naming) and the Staggered Uneven Number test (SUN, number naming). Both RAN tasks were administered on a tablet and in a paper/pencil format. The tablet format was administered using the Mobile Integrated Cognitive Kit application. LCLA was tested at 2.5% and 1.25% contrast.
resultsSixty-four participants (31 MCI, 34 controls; mean age 73.2 ± 6.8 years) were included. MCI patients were slower than controls for paper/pencil (75.0 vs. 53.6 s, p < 0.001), and tablet MULES (69.0 s vs. 50.2 s, p = 0.01). The paper/pencil SUN showed no significant difference (MCI: 59.5 s vs. controls: 59.9 s, p = 0.07) nor did the tablet SUN (MCI: 59.3 s vs. controls: 55.7 s, p = 0.36). MCI patients had worse performance on LCLA testing at 2.5% contrast (33 letters vs. 36, p = 0.04*) and 1.25% (0 letters vs. 14 letters, p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed similar performance of paper/pencil and tablet MULES in distinguishing MCI from controls (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.77), outperforming both SUN (AUC = 0.63 paper, 0.59 tablet) and LCLA (2.5% contrast: AUC = 0.65, 1.25% contrast: AUC = 0.72).
conclusionThe MULES, in both formats, may be a valuable screening tool for MCI. </p>.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.