Neuropsychology - Braincheck thoughts?

[roryportman]

As NP trainee, I'm all for efficiency and using technology for our assessments - if they're reliable and valid.

Cognitive Health Platform for Everyday Clinical Use | BrainCheck

BrainCheck's reimburseable digital cognitive health platform helps physicians and other providers identify dementia and cognitive impairment

braincheck.com

..however, it's concerning that programs like Braincheck don't seem to have any neuropsychologists or psychologists on their team. Also, while I didn't yet read any of the research articles, a listserv commenter stated: "The study declaring it "comparable" to traditional paper and pencil tests had an N of 27, and an age range of 12 to 88, so not compelling."

Frankly, I'm concerned about potential job loss (and I haven't even made it to internship yet), being up against invalid measures that were created by people without intimate knowledge of the field.

BrainCheck brings in another $10M to detect, manage cognitive impairment | TechCrunch

BrainCheck has several new initiatives in the works to close the loop with the patient journey that will be brought to market soon.

techcrunch.com

^and they're being funded by lots of people with $$$ who also do not understand our field. I'm wondering others' thoughts, on whether we should be concerned that companies/programs like this will soon dominate and maybe even completely overtake our profession? I can see that neurologists may be attracted to the efficiency and ease of such programs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jdawg2017]

Fellow trainee here. I have faith that insurance companies will never reimburse for this B.S., but I do think that we as a profession need to catch up with the times. The Houston Conference Guidelines are likely being revised next year (so I have heard) and I believe one element of what is proposed among the many changes is to increase our field's knowledge and use of technologies in neuropsych assessment. There is real opportunity for using cognitive tools like this, but it needs to be done carefully. I agree that these teams not even bringing on a neuropsychologist to consult is alarming, at best.

 

[psych.meout]

Eh, this is probably just vaporware to raise VC funds.

 

[WisNeuro]

There's some smoke here. Not in that these programs are worth anything, but that Neuropsych needs to adapt beyond the last 100+ years. Need to work more closely with research neuroscience to get some more precise digital tools that have some external validity to things like i/ADLs and progression of decline. There's some interesting stuff happening, I think Bilder presented on it at the last pre-Covid conference I attended.

 

[calimich]

These folks seem similar

Creyos | Cognitive Testing for Better Brain Health

Evaluate patient cognitive and behavioral health with precision, efficiency, and ease using the scientifically superior Creyos online platform.

www.cambridgebrainsciences.com

MyOutcomes for Mental Well Being | Improve Patient Outcomes - Home

MyOutcomes® the original online Feedback-Informed Treatment tool for administering the Outcome and Session Rating Scales. MyOutcomes makes your practice evidence based.

www.myoutcomes.com

I get emails and calls from them monthly trying to convince me this is something I need, and of course they push the “add easy revenue to your practice” angle.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There's some smoke here. Not in that these programs are worth anything, but that Neuropsych needs to adapt beyond the last 100+ years. Need to work more closely with research neuroscience to get some more precise digital tools that have some external validity to things like i/ADLs and progression of decline. There's some interesting stuff happening, I think Bilder presented on it at the last pre-Covid conference I attended.

Agreed, and Bob Bilder was the person I was also going to mention as having heard talk about this before (although I know there are others).

There's definitely a lot of room for better integration of technology into neuropsychological science, but I think there's been a rush to market with much of what's out there at the moment in terms of integrating smartphone technology and other novel computerized/technological approaches. I don't know anything about Braincheck specifically, though.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agreed, and Bob Bilder was the person I was also going to mention as having heard talk about this before (although I know there are others).

There's definitely a lot of room for better integration of technology into neuropsychological science, but I think there's been a rush to market with much of what's out there at the moment in terms of integrating smartphone technology and other novel computerized/technological approaches. I don't know anything about Braincheck specifically, though.

Unfortunately, things are probably hampered by some existing animosity. Places like Perason have the infrastructure and funding to push some of this forward, but many npsychs hate and don't trust Pearson all that much.

 

[PsyDr]

1) IMO, $21MM in series C funding isn't a big deal. And I believe that Eagleman is a danger to the long term future of the company.

2) Before this there was CANTAB. Then there was that Aussie firm that had a bigger database, publicly listed stock, and quadruple the funding. Then there was that company that tried to sell neuropsych testing on an iPad to every neurologist in the USA. None of them worked, because demented people won't sit down and do this stuff on their own. And family members want a more personalized touch.

3) There is clearly the need for innovation in our field. In diagnostics, we have a CPT code to administer tests in fMRI settings, but no one routinely uses it. RxP opened the door to order imaging, but I haven't heard of that being used. In treatment, few people offer behavioral care even though the drugs don't work.

 

[psych.meout]

1) IMO, $21MM in series C funding isn't a big deal. And I believe that Eagleman is a danger to the long term future of the company.

2) Before this there was CANTAB. Then there was that Aussie firm that had a bigger database, publicly listed stock, and quadruple the funding. Then there was that company that tried to sell neuropsych testing on an iPad to every neurologist in the USA. None of them worked, because demented people won't sit down and do this stuff on their own. And family members want a more personalized touch.

I wouldn't be surprised if all these projects were like Better Help and other therapy-focused apps where the ostensible purpose is really just a facade so they can collect large amounts of data and monetize it themselves (e.g., targeted ads) or sell it to other companies.

 

[PsyDr]

I wouldn't be surprised if all these projects were like Better Help and other therapy-focused apps where the ostensible purpose is really just a facade so they can collect large amounts of data and monetize it themselves (e.g., targeted ads) or sell it to other companies.

1) It's way too late to get into that field:

Facebook Is Building Its Own Neuroscience Center to Study Marketing

The social network’s unit in New York will work with agencies, brands and media companies to better understand what people want to watch.

www.adweek.com

Facebook Embraces Neuroscience - Neuroscience

Neuroscience helps to measure unconscious reactions to visual stimuli and to bring a better understanding of the pattern of human behavior. Neuroscience is becoming a field of study, widespread not only in the academic world, but also in various fields and is used in many places including...

www.neuroscience.org.uk

2) The real money is automated conversion of verbal info to text, and automated variable labeling. That is a rate limiting step for AI and machine learning. Legal system is already there. Just put the facts of the case in, and AI does the rest.

AI in Law and Legal Practice - A Comprehensive View of 35 Current Applications

From 'automated contract analysis' to 'legal document summarization', this article breaks down 35 unique applications of AI in law and the legal profession.

emerj.com

 

[AcronymAllergy]

1) IMO, $21MM in series C funding isn't a big deal. And I believe that Eagleman is a danger to the long term future of the company.

2) Before this there was CANTAB. Then there was that Aussie firm that had a bigger database, publicly listed stock, and quadruple the funding. Then there was that company that tried to sell neuropsych testing on an iPad to every neurologist in the USA. None of them worked, because demented people won't sit down and do this stuff on their own. And family members want a more personalized touch.

3) There is clearly the need for innovation in our field. In diagnostics, we have a CPT code to administer tests in fMRI settings, but no one routinely uses it. RxP opened the door to order imaging, but I haven't heard of that being used. In treatment, few people offer behavioral care even though the drugs don't work.

This.

Also, I remember one time testing the waters on getting credentialed to order imaging. It was declined, although a reason wasn't really given. To be fair, I'm also not licensed to prescribe.