Search

Introduction: Although the growth of digital tools for cognitive health assessment, there’s a lack of known reference values and clinical implications for these digital methods. This study aims to establish reference values for digital neuropsychological measures obtained through the smartphone-based cognitive assessment application, Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA), and to identify clinical risk factors associated with these measures. Methods: The sample included 932 cognitively intact participants from the Framingham Heart Study, who completed at least one DANA task. Participants were stratified into subgroups based on sex and three age groups. Reference values were established for digital cognitive assessments within each age group, divided by sex, at the 2.5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 97.5th percentile thresholds. To validate these values, 57 cognitively intact participants from Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center were included. Associations between 19 clinical risk factors and these digital neuropsychological measures were examined by a backward elimination strategy. Results: Age- and sex-specific reference values were generated for three DANA tasks. Participants below 60 had median response times for the Go-No-Go task of 796 ms (men) and 823 ms (women), with age-related increases in both sexes. Validation cohort results mostly aligned with these references. Different tasks showed unique clinical correlations. For instance, response time in the Code Substitution task correlated positively with total cholesterol and diabetes, but negatively with high-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and triglycerides. Discussion: This study established and validated reference values for digital neuropsychological measures of DANA in cognitively intact white participants, potentially improving their use in future clinical studies and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although the growth of digital tools for cognitive health assessment, there's a lack of known reference values and clinical implications for these digital methods. This study aims to establish reference values for digital neuropsychological measures obtained through the smartphonebased cognitive assessment application, Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA), and to identify clinical risk factors associated with these measures. Methods: The sample included 932 cognitively intact participants from the Framingham Heart Study, who completed at least one DANA task. Participants were stratified into subgroups based on sex and three age groups. Reference values were established for digital cognitive assessments within each age group, divided by sex, at the 2.5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 97.5th percentile thresholds. To validate these values, 57 cognitively intact participants from Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center were included. Associations between 19 clinical risk factors and these digital neuropsychological measures were examined by a backward elimination strategy. Results: Age- and sex-specific reference values were generated for three DANA tasks. Participants below 60 had median response times for the Go-No-Go task of 796 ms (men) and 823 ms (women), with age-related increases in both sexes. Validation cohort results mostly aligned with these references. Different tasks showed unique clinical correlations. For instance, response time in the Code Substitution task correlated positively with total cholesterol and diabetes, but negatively with high-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and triglycerides. Discussion: This study established and validated reference values for digital neuropsychological measures of DANA in cognitively intact white participants, potentially improving their use in future clinical studies and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a corrigendum for an article titled "Digital neuropsychological measures by defense automated neurocognitive assessment: reference values and clinical correlates." The corrigendum acknowledges an error in the funding statement of the original article, where a grant from the National Institute on Aging was not included. The correct funding statement is provided in the corrigendum. The authors apologize for the error and state that it does not affect the scientific conclusions of the article. [Extracted from the article]