Back

Cognitive Assessment With Cognivue Clarity: Psychometric Properties And Enhanced Normative Ranges In A Diverse Population

galvin, j. E.; Chang, L.-C.; Estes, P.; Harris, H. M.; Fung, E.

2024-03-19 neurology
10.1101/2024.03.18.24304463 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDetecting cognitive impairment in clinical practice is challenging as most instruments do not perform well in diverse samples of older adults. These same instruments are often used for eligibility into clinical trials making it difficult to recruit minoritized adults into Alzheimers disease (AD) studies. Cognivue Clarity(R) is an FDA-cleared computerized cognitive screening platform using adaptive psychophysics to detect cognitive impairment. ObjectiveTest the ability of Cognivue Clarity to detect cognitive impairment in a diverse community sample compared with the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). MethodsThis study enrolled 452 participants across 6 US study sites and completed both Cognivue Clarity device and RBANS. Psychometric properties and exploratory factor analysis of Cognivue Clarity were explored and comparisons against RBANS across different age, sex, education, and ethnoracial groups were conducted. ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 47.9{+/-}16.1 years (range: 18-85), 63.6% were female, 45.9% had <12 years of education, 31.2% were African American and 9.2% were Hispanic. Cognivue Clarity had strong internal consistency, test-retest and minimal practice effects. A 4-factor structure (Memory, Attention, Visuomotor, and Discrimination) had excellent goodness of fit. Normalizing age effects improved performance. Race and education effects were similar to those seen with RBANS. Cognivue Clarity had strong correlation with RBANS. ConclusionsOur study supports the use of Cognivue Clarity as an easy-to-use, brief, and valid cognitive assessment that can be used for identifying individuals with likely cognitive impairment in the clinical setting and those who could be candidates for AD research studies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.0%
2
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.4%
3
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
10.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
6
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
8
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
9
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
12
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
15
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
18
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
19
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
20
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%