Digital cognitive assessments as low‐burden markers for predicting future cognitive decline and tau accumulation across the Alzheimer's spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital cognitive assessments, particularly those that can be done at home, present as low-burden biomarkers for participants and patients alike, but their effectiveness in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) or predicting its trajectory is still unclear. Here, we assessed what utility or added value these digital cognitive assessments provide for identifying those at high risk of cognitive decline. METHODS: We analyzed >500 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants who underwent a brief digital cognitive assessment and amyloid beta (Aβ)/tau positron emission tomography scans, examining their ability to distinguish cognitive status and predict cognitive decline. RESULTS: Performance on the digital cognitive assessment was superior to both cortical Aβ and entorhinal tau in detecting mild cognitive impairment and future cognitive decline, with mnemonic discrimination deficits emerging as the most critical measure for predicting decline and future tau accumulation. DISCUSSION: Digital assessments are effective at identifying at-risk individuals, supporting their utility as low-burden tools for early AD detection and monitoring. HIGHLIGHTS: Performance on digital cognitive assessments predicts progression to mild cognitive impairment at a higher proficiency compared to amyloid beta and tau. Deficits in mnemonic discrimination are indicative of future cognitive decline. Impaired mnemonic discrimination predicts future entorhinal and inferior temporal tau.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".