Mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and cognitive dysfunction screening using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a machine learning algorithm to identify cognitive dysfunction based on neuropsychological screening test results. METHODS: This retrospective study included 955 participants: 341 participants with dementia (dementia), 333 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 341 participants who were cognitively healthy. All participants underwent evaluations including the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Each participant's caregiver or informant was surveyed using the Korean Dementia Screening Questionnaire at the same visit. Different machine learning algorithms were applied, and their overall accuracies, Cohen's kappa, receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated. RESULTS: The overall screening accuracies for MCI, dementia, and cognitive dysfunction (MCI or dementia) using a machine learning algorithm were approximately 67.8% to 93.5%, 96.8% to 99.9%, and 75.8% to 99.9%, respectively. Their kappa statistics ranged from 0.351 to 1.000. The AUCs of the machine learning models were statistically superior to those of the competing screening model. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a machine learning algorithm can be used as a supportive tool in the screening of MCI, dementia, and cognitive dysfunction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".