Scholarlink

<p>In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall<sup>®</sup> (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity<sup>®</sup> assessments. The assertion that our findings rely on “nonequivalent cohorts” or “outdated regulatory data” is factually incorrect; performance metrics were calculated <i>de novo</i> using the harmonized study dataset. Furthermore, we address the omission of the Cognivue Amyloid Risk Measure (CARM), noting that comparing a cross-validated predictive model (DCR) with a post hoc metric derived from the same dataset (CARM) would introduce significant bias due to overfitting. We conclude by highlighting how head-to-head comparisons in diverse cohorts align with the recently published Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease (CEOi) recommendations for digital cognitive assessment standards.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Re: Clarifying comparative claims in digital cognitive assessment: Assessing concurrent validity in a shared cohort

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月19日

查看全文
  • Ali Jannati,
  • Sean Tobyne,
  • Alvaro Pascual-Leone

摘要

In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall® (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity® assessments. The assertion that our findings rely on “nonequivalent cohorts” or “outdated regulatory data” is factually incorrect; performance metrics were calculated de novo using the harmonized study dataset. Furthermore, we address the omission of the Cognivue Amyloid Risk Measure (CARM), noting that comparing a cross-validated predictive model (DCR) with a post hoc metric derived from the same dataset (CARM) would introduce significant bias due to overfitting. We conclude by highlighting how head-to-head comparisons in diverse cohorts align with the recently published Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease (CEOi) recommendations for digital cognitive assessment standards.