Validity and Reliability Study of Online Cognitive Tracking Software (BEYNEX)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Detecting cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer’s disease early and tracking it over time is essential for individuals at risk of cognitive decline. Objective: This research aimed to validate the Beynex app’s gamified assessment tests and the Beynex Performance Index (BPI) score, which monitor cognitive performance across seven categories, considering age and education data. Methods: Beynex test cut-off scores of participants ( n = 91) were derived from the optimization function and compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Validation and reliability analyses were carried out with data collected from an additional 214 participants. Results: Beynex categorization scores showed a moderate agreement with MoCA ratings (weighted Cohen’s Kappa = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.38–0.60). Calculated Cronbach’s Alpha indicates good internal consistency. Test-retest reliability analysis using a linear regression line fitted to results yielded R ∧ 2 of 0.65 with a 95% CI: 0.58, 0.71. Discussion: Beynex’s ability to reliably detect and track cognitive impairment could significantly impact public health, early intervention strategies and improve patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".