ArticleJMIR mental health2026
Active Ingredients in Digital Cognitive Interventions: Integrating Dismantling Designs With Mechanistic Neuroscience.
Article in JMIR mental health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Digital cognitive interventions (DCIs) have emerged as scalable approaches for treating cognitive dysfunction across psychiatric, neurological, and aging populations. Despite growing evidence of efficacy, little is known about which intervention components drive therapeutic effects or through which neurocognitive mechanisms they operate. As a result, null findings are often difficult to interpret, making it unclear whether interventions failed to engage their intended targets, or whether the targets themselves are not causally related to meaningful outcomes. This limits intervention refinement, comparative evaluation, and precision personalization. Here, we argue that DCI research should shift from broad efficacy testing toward mechanistic trials designed to identify active ingredients-the intervention components responsible for engaging prespecified neurocognitive targets and producing clinically meaningful benefits. We propose adapting dismantling design methodology from psychotherapy research in order to integrate Research Domain Criteria constructs, mechanistic neuroscience, and high-resolution digital behavioral data to identify factors driving cognitive and functional outcomes. This approach aligns with the National Institute of Mental Health experimental therapeutics framework by explicitly linking target specification and target engagement with downstream clinical and functional outcomes. Mechanistic dismantling trials can determine whether specific DCI features, including adaptive difficulty, reward schedules, feedback contingencies, task variability, cognitive targets, and human support, are necessary, sufficient, or synergistic for engaging neural circuitry and producing durable and clinically meaningful transfer. Beyond optimizing intervention design, such studies may transform null or negative trials into mechanistically interpretable findings, while clarifying disease mechanisms and supporting the development of personalized, optimized, and usable DCIs.
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.