MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407238841 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1535900

Prospective observational study to evaluate the feasibility of the mobile app for mild cognitive impairment detection and screening

2025· article· en· W4407238841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reo Hamaguchi, Seiji Hongo, Naoto Doi, Hisamitsu Ide, Ryozo Saito, Junji Kishimoto, Nobuhiro Handa, Shigeo Horie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaIntraclass correlationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentObservational studyUsabilityCognitive impairmentCognitionMobile appsMedicinePsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryPsychometricsWorld Wide WebInternal medicineDiseaseHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The increasing prevalence of dementia in aging populations necessitates effective and accessible cognitive screening tools. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of a newly developed mobile app for detecting and screening mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: The mobile app, developed by LifeQuest Co., Ltd. (Minato-ku, Tokyo), is an original tool inspired by the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J). A prospective observational study was conducted with 20 participants, including healthy individuals, MCI patients, and those with mild to moderate-severe dementia. Participants completed both the mobile app and the MoCA-J in a randomized order within a two-week period, with a minimum one-day interval between tests. Results and conclusion: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the mobile app and the MoCA-J was 0.956 (95% CI: 0.89-0.983), demonstrating a very high level of correlation. All participants successfully completed the mobile app assessment, highlighting its feasibility across various cognitive levels. Although minor technical issues and usability challenges were identified, the results support the mobile app as a reliable and user-friendly alternative for cognitive screening. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to validate these findings and refine the app for broader clinical use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207