MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119512608 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_106669

Cognigram <sup>TM</sup> Computerized Cognitive Testing: Longitudinal Validation Study Over Four Years

2025· article· en· W7119512608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive testNeuropsychologyCognitive declinePopulationCognitive Assessment SystemTask (project management)Neuropsychological testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background As the population ages, there is increasing need for biomarkers which can predict if individuals will worsen cognitively or remain stable. Cognigram™ (CG) is a computerized cognitive battery which uses card‐sorting tasks to assess cognitive abilities, thus acting as a “digital biomarker”, which may predict cognitive decline earlier than paper‐based cognitive tests. Method Participants with clinically‐diagnosed mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were asked to complete CG testing and traditional neuropsychological testing over a period of four years. Individuals who demonstrated a significant deterioration on cognitive and functional testing over time (as determined by blinded expert consensus conference) were labelled as “decliners”. Those who did not deteriorate on testing were labelled as “non‐decliners”. CG findings were analyzed for early predictive changes which could differentiate between decliners and non‐decliners. Result Seventeen (M=12, F=5) individuals were identified for this analysis, and were classified over an average of 34 months in the study (range 6‐61 months) as decliners ( n = 8, 37.5% female, average age 75.6) or non‐decliners ( n = 9, 22.2% female, average age 75.4). Over the first year, the CG one‐back task (“Is this card the same as the previous card?”) consistently showed the decliner group having more negative change from baseline at each timepoint compared to the non‐decliner group, with moderate effect sizes observed at 3 and 9 months and a very large effect size observed at 12 months (Hedges’ g=‐1.54, p = 0.03). Conclusion The CG one‐back task showed greater negative change over one year in participants observed to decline clinically during the study. A larger study is needed to determine if CG can predict the likelihood of long‐term cognitive decline in patients with mild cognitive impairment.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.267 · 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