MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411792037 · doi:10.1186/s44247-025-00158-4

Feasibility of cognitive testing and ecological momentary assessments using smartphones in middle aged and older adults with insomnia

2025· article· en· W4411792037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Ghadimi, Jason Ereso, Alexander Kaula, Nick Taptiklis, Francesca Cormack, Cathy Alessi, Jennifer Martin, Joseph M. Dzierzewski, Arash Naeim, Sarah Kremen, Tue Te, Constance H. Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsContext (archaeology)CognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyCognitive declineMedicineAudiologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentDementiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Older adults with insomnia who use benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZAs) may be at increased risk of cognitive impairment. Cognitive testing outside of clinical settings may yield results that are more reflective of individuals' cognition in their natural environment, where they experience fluctuations in mental state (e.g. drowsiness). We assessed the feasibility of self-administered cognitive testing via smartphone apps for collecting in-moment, in-context data about a person's current state (ecological momentary assessment, EMA). Methods: = 20; median age 66 years; 14 females, 18 white) aged ≥ 55 years who were recruited from a BZA deprescribing trial were invited to complete (over a 28 day period) daily drowsiness assessments on an EMA app (cued by smartwatch alerts) and weekly self-administered digit span (DGS) forward/backward (2 [minimum] - 9 [maximum]), verbal paired associates (VPA; 0 [best]-24 [worst] total errors), and cued delayed recall of VPA (VPA-DR; 0 [best] - 8 [worst] errors) tests on a cognitive app. We assessed the completion of EMA (0-28 days) and cognitive sessions (# of participants per # sessions completed). We performed thematic analysis of the participant interviews. Results: The median number of days that EMA was completed was 24.5. Twelve (60%) individuals participated in 4 sessions; 2 (10%) individuals participated in 3 sessions; 2 (10%) individuals participated in 2 sessions; and 4 (20%) individuals participated in 1 session. No drowsiness was reported 36% of the time, whereas 38% of the responses reflected feeling "a little bit" drowsy and 26% at least "somewhat" drowsy. Mean cognitive test scores were DGS-Forward = 7 (SD 1.3), DGS-Backward = 5.6 (SD 1.0), VPA total errors = 9.9 (SD 3.7), and VPA-DR = 2.2 (SD 1.9). Three themes emerged from the participant interviews: 1) concern for one's own cognitive abilities, 2) strategies employed for optimizing scores (including strategies that would invalidate results), and 3) ease of use of the applications. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that mobile cognitive tests and EMAs are feasible in this older population. Further work is needed to understand how scores are influenced by the setting, mood, and behaviors. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44247-025-00158-4.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Digital HealthSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207