Digital Screening for Early Identification of Cognitive Impairment: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As longevity increases, cognitive decline in older adults has become a growing concern. Consequently, an increasing interest in the potential of digital tools (e.g., serious games (SG) and virtual reality (VR)) for early screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is emerging. Traditional cognitive assessments like the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are widely used but have limitations related to cultural bias and manual scoring, while their digital adaptations, such as MOCA-CC, maintain diagnostic accuracy while offering remote administration and automated scoring. Innovative tools, such as the Virtual Super Market (VSM) test and Panoramix Suite, instead, assess cognitive domains like memory, attention, and executive function while promoting engagement and preserving ecological validity, making assessments more reflective of real-world tasks. Several studies show that these tools exhibit strong diagnostic performance, with sensitivity and specificity often exceeding 80%. However, although digital tools offer advantages in accessibility and user engagement, challenges remain concerning technological literacy, data privacy, and long-term validation. Future research should focus on validating these tools across diverse populations and exploring hybrid models that combine traditional and digital assessments, as digital tools show promise in transforming cognitive screening and enabling earlier interventions for cognitive decline. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Development and Aging Neuroscience > Cognition.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".