ArticleInnovation in aging2026
Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools.
Article in Innovation in aging, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Dementia is becoming increasingly prevalent, highlighting the need for early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a risk state for dementia. Traditional cognitive assessments often require trained examiners and lack ecological validity. This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of a virtual reality (VR)-based cognitive assessment tool, VARABOM.D, by comparing it with three standard tests: Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery (SNSB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Research Design and Methods: Seventy-seven participants, divided into normal ( Results: VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments. Its AUC values were comparable to those of the MoCA, MMSE, and most SNSB subdomains except for attention, where VARABOM.D demonstrated greater discriminative ability. SSQ scores remained stable across pre- and post-VR sessions in both study groups, underscoring the VR platform's safety and feasibility. Discussion and Implications: VARABOM.D demonstrated accuracy comparable to traditional cognitive assessments and even outperformed the attention subdomain of SNSB. Additionally, no adverse reactions were observed in the normal or MCI groups, further emphasizing the safety and stability of VARABOM.D.
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.