MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412390951 · doi:10.2196/75687

Bringing Executive Function Testing Online: Assessment Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4412390951 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mouna Attarha, Ana de Figueiredo Pelegrino, Lydia Ouellet, Sarah-Jane Grant, Etienne de Villers‐Sidani, Thomas Van Vleet

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCognitive flexibilityCognitionNeuropsychologyPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentExecutive functionsTrail Making TestNormativeClinical psychologyUsabilityMedicineGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Executive function encompasses a set of higher-order cognitive processes, including planning, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, that are essential for goal-directed behavior. These abilities are adversely affected by age, with executive dysfunction ultimately impairing the performance of activities of daily living. Objective: This study aimed to assess the validity of a computerized cognitive assessment in predicting executive function performance in healthy older adults. Methods: This retrospective analysis utilized baseline data from the Improving Neurological Health in Aging via Neuroplasticity-Based Computerized Exercise (INHANCE) trial. The study provides normative data for cognitively healthy older adults (aged 65 years and above) and evaluates the usability and validity of Freeze Frame, a cognitive assessment available on the BrainHQ platform. Performance on Freeze Frame was analyzed in relation to self-reported demographic variables and neuropsychological function, using a standardized measure of executive function, the National Institutes of Health Executive Abilities: Measures and Instruments for Neurobehavioral Evaluation and Research (NIH EXAMINER). Results: The intent-to-treat analysis included 92 cognitively healthy older adults (mean age 71.9, SD 4.86, range: 65-83 years), of whom 66% (61/92) were female, with a mean education level of 16.45 (SD 3.40, range: 9-27) years. Performance on Freeze Frame was modestly associated with executive function scores on NIH EXAMINER (P=.02), accounting for 6.8% of the variance. The assessment showed a small but statistically significant relationship to age (ρ=-0.22, P=.046) and gender, with no significant influence of education. Psychometric evaluation supported its usability, with an average completion time of 4 (SD 0.16) minutes. Conclusions: Freeze Frame is a brief, scalable, and accessible computerized cognitive assessment with demonstrated concurrent validity for executive function. Its efficiency and ease of administration across internet-connected devices suggests potential applications for cognitive screening. Future research should explore its utility in detecting executive dysfunction in clinical populations and its potential role in predicting functional performance across activities of daily living.

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)0.017
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 score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.404 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→