ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026
Digital Cognitive Phenotyping for Differential Diagnosis and Monitoring in Neurological Conditions.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the utility, accessibility, and equivalence to supervised scales of online cognitive assessment in older individuals with cognitive impairment.
methodsPatients with Alzheimer's disease (AD, n = 31), idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH, n = 26), and traumatic brain injury (TBI, n = 23) completed online cognitive tasks (Cognitron). We evaluated cognition relative to a large normative dataset (N ≈ 400,000), adjusting for device and demographics which can affect performance. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to derive domain-specific and total composite scores. We compared clinical groups and correlated performance with standard assessments.
resultsUptake was ~70%. PCA identified components across memory, processing speed, language, and executive functions. AD showed memory and language impairments compared with the norms and other groups. iNPH had greater executive and processing speed deficits, consistent with a subcortical impairment profile. TBI showed milder deficits in memory, working memory, and language. Cognitron total composite was associated with standard supervised tests (ADAS-Cog: β = -0.76, p < 0.001 and ACE-III: β = 0.69, p < 0.001). In iNPH, Cognitron composite predicted walking speed (estimate = 1.10, p < 0.001), a core clinical feature of the disease which is difficult to evaluate remotely. We selected five tasks with high completion rates, discriminability between conditions, and broad cognitive coverage. The derived short composite showed very high accuracy in separating AD (AUC = 0.94) and iNPH (AUC = 0.90) from age-matched norms; performance was weaker for TBI (AUC = 0.66).
interpretationOnline assessment in older clinical populations is feasible and sensitive to subtle disease-specific cognitive deficits. A demographically adjusted, 15-min battery offers a scalable adjunct to standard testing, with potential to reduce burden on patients and healthcare systems.
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.