MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112176537 · doi:10.1002/alz.042863

Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia with the artificial intelligence‐based Integrated Cognitive Assessment

2020· article· en· W3112176537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Hadi Modarres, Vahid Reza Khazaie, Mohammad Ghorbani, Amir Mohammad Ghoreyshi, Alireza Akhavanpour, Reza Ebrahimpour, Zahra Vahabi, Chris Kalafatis, Seyed‐Mahdi Khaligh Razavi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionPsychologyAudiologyCognitive impairmentPopulationCorrelationArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicineComputer sciencePsychiatryDiseaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We have developed the Integrated Cognitive Assessment (ICA), a 5‐minute, self‐administered, computerised test that is independent of language, cultural background and education and aims at screening for cognitive impairment in a way that can simplify and accelerate the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The ICA utilises artificial intelligence to analyse high‐dimensional clinical and demographic data. Method We carried out head‐to‐head studies comparing classification performance of the ICA with widely used cognitive assessments (MoCA and ACE) in participants with MCI and mild AD. The ICA test measures patterns of reaction time and categorisation accuracy which are utilised by an AI engine, alongside demographic data, to provide a predictive score about participant’s cognitive status. We also investigated the use of a deep (50 layers) neural network to extract informative features from the ICA test response patterns. Result On a population of 200 participants (84 healthy, 68 MCI, 48 mild AD), the ICA achieved an area under the ROC accuracy of 91% in distinguishing between healthy and impaired (MCI and mild AD) participants. In comparison MoCA achieved an AUC of 82%, and ACE 84%. Utilising the deep learning network for automatic feature extraction significantly improved the specificity and sensitivity compared to only using a linear classifier. The ICA Spearman correlation of 0.67 (p‐value <0.0001) with MoCA, and 0.73 (p‐value<0.0001) with ACE establishes convergent validity with these cognitive tests. ICA results were not biased by participants level of education (i.e. no significant correlation), whereas MoCA and ACE had correlations of 0.31 (p<0.0001) and 0.31 (p<0.001) respectively with the level of education in the same set of subjects. Conclusion The ICA can support clinicians by aiding accurate diagnosis of MCI and AD and is appropriate for large‐scale screening of cognitive impairment. The ICA has advantages over MoCA and ACE because of its shorter duration, automatic scoring and potential for medical record or research database integration. ICA’s AI engine is able to learn from additional data and utilise deep learning, further improving the predictive power of the ICA test.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207