Computer‐based evaluation of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment patients during a picture description task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We present a methodology to automatically evaluate the performance of patients during picture description tasks. METHODS: Transcriptions and audio recordings of the Cookie Theft picture description task were used. With 25 healthy elderly control (HC) samples and an information coverage measure, we automatically generated a population-specific referent. We then assessed 517 transcriptions (257 Alzheimer's disease [AD], 217 HC, and 43 mild cognitively impaired samples) according to their informativeness and pertinence against this referent. We extracted linguistic and phonetic metrics which previous literature correlated to early-stage AD. We trained two learners to distinguish HCs from cognitively impaired individuals. RESULTS: < .001) correlated with the severity of the cognitive impairment and the Mini-Mental State Examination score. The classification sensitivity was 81% (area under the curve of receiver operating characteristics = 0.79) and 85% (area under the curve of receiver operating characteristics = 0.76) between HCs and AD and between HCs and AD and mild cognitively impaired, respectively. DISCUSSION: An automated assessment of a picture description task could assist clinicians in the detection of early signs of cognitive impairment and AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".