Supervised Digital Neuropsychological Tests for Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Usability and Clinical Validity Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia is a major and growing health problem, and early diagnosis is key to its management. OBJECTIVE: With the ultimate goal of providing a monitoring tool that could be used to support the screening for cognitive decline, this study aims to develop a supervised, digitized version of 2 neuropsychological tests: Trail Making Test and Bells Test. The system consists of a web app that implements a tablet-based version of the tests and consists of an innovative vocal assistant that acts as the virtual supervisor for the execution of the test. A replay functionality is added to allow inspection of the user's performance after test completion. METHODS: To deploy the system in a nonsupervised environment, extensive functional testing of the platform was conducted, together with a validation of the tablet-based tests. Such validation had the two-fold aim of evaluating system usability and acceptance and investigating the concurrent validity of computerized assessment compared with the corresponding paper-and-pencil counterparts. RESULTS: The results obtained from 83 older adults showed high system acceptance, despite the patients' low familiarity with technology. The system software was successfully validated. A concurrent validation of the system reported good ability of the digitized tests to retain the same predictive power of the corresponding paper-based tests. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, the positive results pave the way for the deployment of the system to a nonsupervised environment, thus representing a potential efficacious and ecological solution to support clinicians in the identification of early signs of cognitive decline.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".