BrainCheck

Deliberate C, and the most important grade on this record. BrainCheck Assess is a digitized, normed battery of established neuropsychological instruments (Stroop, Trail Making, Digit Symbol Substitution, recognition memory) delivered on a tablet with an expanding normative database for scoring. That is digitization plus norming, not a machine learning diagnostic model, and no located material describes a trained model doing the classification. The moat is the validated battery, the normative data and the reimbursement workflow, not the AI. Same principle applied to ModMed, Indica Labs and the credentialing lane: where the asset is the data or the platform rather than the model, AI Centrality is graded down regardless of how the company is tagged elsewhere.

A on candour, the MD-Staff precedent. The company states plainly that BrainCheck is not intended for use as a stand-alone diagnostic tool, that Assess is designed to support clinical interpretation rather than replace it, and that structured cognitive data should be interpreted alongside history, exam findings and functional status, never in isolation. Explicit, repeated, and placed in product copy rather than buried in a disclaimer. Where a vendor's scope limits are this clearly drawn, the index credits it.

The battery composition is fully disclosed down to the individual instruments and the cognitive domains each targets, and the normative database is described as an expanding reference set. That is more transparency than most vendors offer. Graded B rather than A because there is no published model card or algorithmic description, which is consistent with there being little algorithmic content to describe.

The strongest axis on this record and unusually complete for a company of this size. A validation study of 99 participants reported at least 88 percent sensitivity and specificity separating normal cognition from dementia and at least 77 percent separating mild cognitive impairment from the other groups, with three-group true positive rates reported separately and honestly, including the weaker 64 percent for the MCI group. A later analysis found a Pearson correlation of 0.77 against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with confidence interval reported. A 529 participant study across four US clinical sites, run with BrainBox Solutions and registered as NCT04423198, tested test retest reliability and concurrent validity against the corresponding paper instruments. A separate finding that remote self-administration is statistically indistinguishable from coordinator led in-person sessions directly validates the deployment claim rather than just the test. Published in peer reviewed venues and reporting the unflattering numbers alongside the good ones.

The company maintains a security and compliance section, but no specific published detail on PHI handling, data retention or research use of patient data was retrieved at the time of review.

No published BAA terms located at the time of review, though a security and compliance section exists on the site.

A security and compliance page exists but no specific third party attestation such as SOC 2 Type II or HITRUST was retrieved at the time of review. Worth pressing for the actual report, the same question raised against Axuall.

BrainCheck Assess is regulated as a Class II medical device and the company is consistent about which single component carries that status: Assess is described as the only FDA registered Class II component within a platform of more than 30 tools. That scoping discipline is creditable and mirrors Milvue. Graded B rather than A because located materials use the terms FDA cleared, FDA registered and FDA approved inconsistently across pages and third party coverage, and no specific 510(k) number was retrieved. A buyer should obtain the clearance number and intended use statement directly.

Better than most in the index on the dimension that matters for this product. Cognitive testing is acutely sensitive to language, education and cultural background, and normative data quality is the governance surface. The company has publicly expanded its normative database specifically to support accuracy and consistency, states the assessment maintains consistency across devices and demographics, and the battery is available in English and Spanish. Graded B rather than A because no subgroup performance breakdown by race, education level or primary language was located, and those are exactly the axes on which cognitive instruments are known to misclassify.

Named live integrations with Epic and athenahealth, with athenahealth customers described as having instant integration, and assessment scheduling and results linked to the patient chart. Naming specific EHRs rather than claiming generic interoperability is worth credit. Graded B rather than A because the integration list is short against index leaders such as SpinSci and CertifyOS, and the company notes some feature availability is determined by EHR integration, meaning capability varies by platform.

Genuinely flexible delivery: runs on any tablet or smartphone, supports both in-clinic and remote administration, and the company reports same-day setup by a US based team. The remote equivalence finding gives the deployment claim evidentiary support rather than leaving it as marketing. No data residency or hosting architecture detail was located.

No list price, but the reimbursement disclosure is the most practically useful in this part of the index and is published openly rather than gated behind a sales call. The company names the specific CPT codes involved, including 96136 and 96138 for test administration and scoring depending on whether a professional or a technician administers, 96132 for interpretation, and 99483 for cognitive care planning, states the 16 minute minimum for the time based codes, addresses modifier use when an E/M service is billed the same day, notes which codes can be delivered via telehealth including audio-only, and publishes an annually updated reimbursement guide. It also states plainly that billing decisions remain provider-driven and payer-dependent and that the material is educational rather than billing advice. Naming the revenue path this precisely, with the caveats attached, is the Cleerly pattern applied to an outpatient workflow.

Explicitly spans primary care, neurology, geriatrics, behavioral health and research, in-clinic and remote, and the platform is used in clinical, academic and translational research across neurological disease, aging, cancer, post-viral syndromes and population health. Broad across care settings for a single clinical question. Graded B rather than A because the clinical scope is one domain, cognition, however many settings it reaches.