The Use of a Computerized Cognitive Assessment to Improve the Efficiency of Primary Care Referrals to Memory Services: Protocol for the Accelerating Dementia Pathway Technologies (ADePT) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing primary care cognitive assessment tools are crude or time-consuming screening instruments which can only detect cognitive impairment when it is well established. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, memory services have adapted to the new environment by moving to remote patient assessments to continue meeting service user demand. However, the remote use of cognitive assessments has been variable while there has been scant evaluation of the outcome of such a change in clinical practice. Emerging research in remote memory clinics has highlighted computerized cognitive tests, such as the Integrated Cognitive Assessment (ICA), as prominent candidates for adoption in clinical practice both during the pandemic and for post-COVID-19 implementation as part of health care innovation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Accelerating Dementia Pathway Technologies (ADePT) study is to develop a real-world evidence basis to support the adoption of ICA as an inexpensive screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment to improve the efficiency of the dementia care pathway. METHODS: Patients who have been referred to a memory clinic by a general practitioner (GP) are recruited. Participants complete the ICA either at home or in the clinic along with medical history and usability questionnaires. The GP referral and ICA outcome are compared with the specialist diagnosis obtained at the memory clinic. The clinical outcomes as well as National Health Service reference costing data will be used to assess the potential health and economic benefits of the use of the ICA in the dementia diagnosis pathway. RESULTS: The ADePT study was funded in January 2020 by Innovate UK (Project Number 105837). As of September 2021, 86 participants have been recruited in the study, with 23 participants also completing a retest visit. Initially, the study was designed for in-person visits at the memory clinic; however, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was amended to allow remote as well as face-to-face visits. The study was also expanded from a single site to 4 sites in the United Kingdom. We expect results to be published by the second quarter of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The ADePT study aims to improve the efficiency of the dementia care pathway at its very beginning and supports systems integration at the intersection between primary and secondary care. The introduction of a standardized, self-administered, digital assessment tool for the timely detection of neurodegeneration as part of a decision support system that can signpost accordingly can reduce unnecessary referrals, service backlog, and assessment variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 16596456; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16596456. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34475.
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 | 0.054 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.011 |
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".