Neuroscience company Cognivue, Inc announced the publication of its clinical validation study showing its technology “equally as effective as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with superior test-retest reliability.” The peer-reviewed paper is now available via open access from Neurological Sciences and Neurosurgery.1

Related article: Cognivue CEO Tom O’Neill Joins Milken Institute Committee

Cognivue technologies are designed to provide healthcare providers a useful tool for cognitive evaluation and diagnosis of various neurodegenerative and neuropsychological disorders. The digital system is “engineered to eliminate bias and variability throughout the test that establishes cognitive baselines and provide a concurrent monitoring vehicle for the evaluation and treatment of cognitive issues over time,” according to the company.

“This study further demonstrates that Cognivue’s technology is the most reliable, non-biased, objective assessment of cognitive function decline. It further reinforces the findings of prior studies of the world’s first FDA-cleared computerized test of cognitive function and affirms the technology’s use in today’s evolving healthcare environments,” said Dr Fred Ma, the paper’s first author and chief medical officer and senior vice president at Cognivue. 

The validation study involved 100 participants age 55 and above who completed two testing sessions, 1-2 weeks apart using both Cognivue Clarity and MoCA. Correlation analyses were performed for overall scores on each neuropsychological test and retest reliability was assessed via regression analyses.

The results showed a statistically significant positive correlation between overall scored on Cognivue Clarity and MoCA (r = 0.38; p<0.001). Furthermore, test-retest was greater for Cognivue Clarity than MoCA for participants initially having no cognitive impairment (87.3% vs. 73.1%). Regression analyses of test-retest reliability demonstrated a statistically significant regression fit for each test (Cognivue Clarity: R2 = 0.439, r = 0.663; MoCA: R2 = 0.378, r = 0.615) with Cognivue Clarity revealing a tighter and more linear pattern than observed for MoCA. This clinical validation study is consistent with prior studies establishing the validity and psychometric properties of Cognivue Clarity versus SLUMS.

The authors note that early identification and routine cognitive impairment assessment can facilitate patient-clinician discussion about potential interventions, increasing opportunities to improve outcomes. Likewise, increasing use of a faster and more objective method of multi-domain cognitive assessment can enhance the efficiency of neurocognitive testing in clinical practice—something of even more significant value in large healthcare systems.

The paper also acknowledges that more traditional cognitive assessment methods which rely on paper-and-pencil and/or face-to-face interaction have become less suitable for current practice. This not only includes trends toward shorter duration of direct contact between the clinician and patient, but also efforts to improve access to care, where adaptive solutions for remote testing introduce additional challenges such as the inability to fully assess certain cognitive domains.

“Early detection of cognitive impairment is critically important in order for patients to make timely decisions to manage their condition. Cognivue’s technology objectively, quantitatively, and reliably identifies cognitive status and can elevate the standard of care for cognitive health assessment and treatment,” said Tom O’Neill, President and CEO of Cognivue. “Rapid, easily accessible cognitive function assessment, whether in a medical office setting or in a growing number of non-traditional venues, can play a pivotal role in the healthcare continuum so patients can take the steps to mitigate symptoms of impairment prior to more serious disease onset.”

1 Ma F, Cahn-Hidalgo D. Clinical validation of Cognivue® – A computerized alternative to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test. Neurological Sciences and Neurosurgery. 2021;2(2):1-5.

Source: Cognivue, Neurological Sciences and Neurosurgery