MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396776195 · doi:10.2196/56074

Mobile Health App (DIGICOG-MS) for Self-Assessment of Cognitive Impairment in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Instrument Validation and Usability Study

2024· article· en· W4396776195 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Podda, Andrea Tacchino, Michela Ponzio, Federica Di Antonio, A. Susini, Ludovico Pedullà, Mario Alberto Battaglia, Giampaolo Brichetto

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaSanofi
KeywordsPreprintUsabilityMultiple sclerosisMobile appsCognitive impairmentPsychologyMedicineCognitionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps have proven useful for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Thus, easy-to-use digital solutions are now strongly required to assess and monitor cognitive impairment, one of the most disturbing symptoms in MS that is experienced by almost 43% to 70% of people with MS. Therefore, we developed DIGICOG-MS (Digital assessment of Cognitive Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis), a smartphone- and tablet-based mHealth app to self-assess cognitive impairment in MS. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the validity and usability of the novel mHealth app with a sample of people with MS. METHODS: DIGICOG-MS includes 4 digital tests assumed to evaluate the most affected cognitive domains in MS (visuospatial memory [VSM], verbal memory [VM], semantic fluency [SF], and information processing speed [IPS]) and inspired by traditional paper-based tests that assess the same cognitive functions (10/36 Spatial Recall Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Word List Generation, Symbol Digit Modalities Test). Participants were asked to complete both digital and traditional assessments in 2 separate sessions. Convergent validity was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient to determine the strength of the associations between digital and traditional tests. To test the app's reliability, the agreement between 2 repeated measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Usability of DIGICOG-MS was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) administered at the conclusion of the digital session. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 92 people with MS (60 women) followed as outpatients at the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society (AISM) Rehabilitation Service of Genoa (Italy). They had a mean age of 51.38 (SD 11.36) years, education duration of 13.07 (SD 2.74) years, disease duration of 12.91 (SD 9.51) years, and a disability level (Expanded Disability Status Scale) of 3.58 (SD 1.75). Relapsing-remitting MS was most common (68/92, 74%), followed by secondary progressive (15/92, 16%) and primary progressive (9/92, 10%) courses. Pearson correlation analyses indicated significantly strong correlations for VSM, VM, SF, and IPS (all P<.001), with r values ranging from 0.58 to 0.78 for all cognitive domains. Test-retest reliability of the mHealth app was excellent (ICCs>0.90) for VM and IPS and good for VSM and SF (ICCs>0.80). Moreover, the SUS score averaged 84.5 (SD 13.34), and the mean total MAUQ score was 104.02 (SD 17.69), suggesting that DIGICOG-MS was highly usable and well appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: The DIGICOG-MS tests were strongly correlated with traditional paper-based evaluations. Furthermore, people with MS positively evaluated DIGICOG-MS, finding it highly usable. Since cognitive impairment poses major limitations for people with MS, these findings open new paths to deploy digital cognitive tests for MS and further support the use of a novel mHealth app for cognitive self-assessment by people with MS in clinical practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207