MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205696144 · doi:10.1002/alz.054123

A remote digital tool for diagnosis and monitoring of Alzheimer’s disease

2021· article· en· W4205696144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Hadi Modarres, Chris Kalafatis, Panos Apostolou, Haniye Marefat, Mahdiyeh Khanbagi, Hamed Karimi, Zahra Vahabi, Dag Aarsland, Seyed‐Mahdi Khaligh‐Razavi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCohortCognitionPopulationLogistic regressionCognitive declineCognitive impairmentMedicineAudiologyPsychologyDiseaseInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Early detection and monitoring of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients are key to tackling dementia and providing benefits to patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and society. Method We developed the Integrated Cognitive Assessment (ICA); a 5 minute computerised cognitive test employs Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve its accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment. ICA presents a series of rapidly changing images on a mobile device to measure cognitive impairment via a person's accuracy and response time in categorising those images. We studied the ICA in a total of 230 participants. 95 healthy volunteers, 80 MCI, and 55 mild AD participants completed the ICA, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE) cognitive tests. Result The ICA demonstrated convergent validity with MoCA (r=0.58) and ACE (r=0.62). The ICA AI model was able to detect cognitive impairment with an area under the curve of 81% for MCI patients (MoCA 77%), and 88% for mild AD patients (MoCA 89%). The AI classifier, based on an explainable logistic regression model, demonstrated improved performance with increased training data. Furthermore it showed generalisability in performance from one population to another. The ICA was able to detect cognitive impairment with high accuracy when trained with one cohort and tested in an independent cohort with different cultural and demographic characteristics, a prerequisite for large population deployment. In a monitoring study, 12 healthy participants self‐administered 78 ICA tests remotely over a period of 3 months (936 tests in total). The ICA demonstrated no significant practice effect observed over the duration of the study. 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 is unbiased by differences in language, culture and education and has additional advantages over standard of care tests because of its shorter duration, automatic scoring and potential for medical record or research database integration. The pandemic has presented a challenge for face‐face assessments. A digital tool such as the ICA allows us to adapt to these changes by administering assessments remotely and monitoring disease progression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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