Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment in an At-Risk Group of Older Adults: Can a Novel Self-Administered Serious Game-Based Screening Test Improve Diagnostic Accuracy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literature supports the use of serious games and virtual environments to assess cognitive functions and detect cognitive decline. This promising assessment method, however, has not yet been translated into self-administered screening instruments for pre-clinical dementia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the performance of a novel self-administered serious game-based test, namely the Virtual Supermarket Test (VST), in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a sample of older adults with subjective memory complaints (SMC), in comparison with two well-established screening instruments, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). METHODS: Two groups, one of healthy older adults with SMC (N = 48) and one of MCI patients (N = 47) were recruited from day centers for cognitive disorders and administered the VST, the MoCA, the MMSE, and an extended pencil and paper neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: The VST displayed a correct classification rate (CCR) of 81.91% when differentiating between MCI patients and older adults with SMC, while the MoCA displayed of CCR of 72.04% and the MMSE displayed a CCR of 64.89%. CONCLUSION: The three instruments assessed in this study displayed significantly different performances in differentiating between healthy older adults with SMC and MCI patients. The VST displayed a good CCR, while the MoCA displayed an average CCR and the MMSE displayed a poor CCR. The VST appears to be a robust tool for detecting MCI in a population of older adults with SMC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".