ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Rethinking neuropsychological test validity in dementia assessment: a critical review in the age of neuroimaging and digital markers.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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.
- Cognitive Age Delta as a Marker of Healthy and Pathological Cognitive Aging: The Role of Lifestyle, Cognitive Reserve, and Vascular Risk.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuropsychological tests are essential tools for evaluating dementia and related neurocognitive disorders, with their clinical utility determined mainly by their validity. This paper critically reviews the diverse evidence supporting the validity of neuropsychological tests in dementia assessment. Criterion validity is discussed in relation to the tests' ability to predict clinical diagnoses and underlying brain pathology, with a focus on their sensitivity to functional impairments and progressive neuropathological changes. Construct validity is explored through the lens of cognitive processes underlying test performance, using evidence from correlation structures and experimental paradigms. Furthermore, the paper examines the impact of emerging digital technologies on the evaluation of neuropsychological test validity, highlighting contrasts with traditional validation methods. The review identifies discrepancies between different types of validity evidence, emphasizing the need to contextualize validity within specific clinical and research applications. By addressing the conceptual limitations and trade-offs between validation approaches, this study proposes a comprehensive framework for interpreting validity evidence. Ultimately, it offers theoretical and practical implications for enhancing the robustness of neuropsychological tests in clinical practice and research.
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.