MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981313559 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.1049

P1‐444: BASELINE DATA IN A LONGITUDINAL VALIDATION OF COGNIGRAM<sup>TM</sup> COMPUTERIZED COGNITIVE TESTING IN MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (MCI)

2019· article· en· W2981313559 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Frank, Iman Sabra, Bruce Wallace, Michael Breau, Lisa Sweet, Frank Knoefel, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Cognitive impairmentCognitionLongitudinal dataCognitive testPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryData miningPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown that computerized cognitive assessments have the capacity for early detection of subtle changes in cognition in older adults by way of high-precision measurement of accuracy and speed of responses. The Cognigram (CG) platform is a computerized card game that measures cognitive functioning, with results shown to be unaffected by language, educational level, or cultural background. Our study aims to assess the capacity of CG to predict future cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) subjects. Baseline data is presented here. Subjects were characterized by a full cognitive assessment at a tertiary memory clinic. 13 MCI and 8 CN subjects are presented here (target 30 MCI and 30 CN). CG testing and MoCA testing sessions will be performed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, and 36 months. Clinical and neuropsychological evaluations will be performed at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months. MCI participants’ average age is 77.8 years old and 70.0 years old for CN. 23% of MCI and 100% of CN participants are female. The average baseline MoCA score for MCI was 22.2 and 28.13 for CN. The average baseline CG composite score for psychomotor function/attention for MCI was 85.0 and 97.0 for CN. The average baseline CG composite score for learning/working memory was 89.0 for MCI and 100.0 for CN participants. In this baseline data, both average CG composite scores for MCI participants were within the borderline performance range of 80-89, compared to the CN participants whose scores were within the normal performance range of 92-150. Preliminary findings to date show that CG can help distinguish cognitive differences between MCI and CN participants at baseline. The next three years of data collection will hopefully identify early changes in CG scoring that are predictive of further decline in the subset of patients with MCI that will convert to dementia.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→