ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study.
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 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.
- Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability Analysis of MMSE-K and Tablet PC-Based MMSE-K Kit in Patients with Neurologic Disease.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rising prevalence of dementia necessitates a scalable solution to cognitive screening. Paper-based cognitive screening examinations are well-validated but minimally scalable. If a digital cognitive screening examination could replicate paper-based screening, it may improve scalability while potentially maintaining the performance of these well-validated paper-based tests. Here, we evaluate the Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment (RoCA), a remote and self-administered digital cognitive screening examination. Objective: The objective of this study was to validate the ability of RoCA to reliably evaluate patient input, identify patients with cognitive impairment relative to the established tests, and evaluate its potential as a screening tool. Methods: RoCA uses a convolutional neural network to evaluate a patient's ability to perform common cognitive screening tasks: wireframe diagram copying and clock drawing tests. To evaluate RoCA, we compared its evaluations with those of established paper-based tests. This open-label study consists of 46 patients (age range 33-82 years) who were enrolled from neurology clinics. Patients completed the RoCA screening examination and either Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-3 (ACE-3, n=35) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, n=11). We evaluated 3 primary metrics of RoCA's performance: (1) ability to correctly evaluate patient inputs, (2) ability to identify patients with cognitive impairment compared to ACE-3 and MoCA, and (3) performance as a screening tool. Results: RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). RoCA achieved sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.80-1.0; P<.001). This was robust to multiple control analyses. Approximately 83% (16/19) of the patient respondents reported RoCA as highly intuitive, with 95% (18/19) perceiving it as adding value to their care. Conclusions: RoCA may act as a simple and highly scalable digital cognitive screening examination. However, due to the limitations of this study, further work is required to evaluate the ability of RoCA to be generalizable across patient populations, assess its performance in an entirely remote manner, and analyze the effect of digital literacy.
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.