Electronic Cognitive Screen Technology for Screening Older Adults With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a Community Setting: Development and Validation Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND A digital cognitive test can be a useful and quick tool for the screening of cognitive impairment. Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests. However, the use of commercially available digital cognitive tests is not common in Hong Kong, which may be due to the high cost of the tests and the language barrier. Thus, we developed a brief and user-friendly digital cognitive test called the Electronic Cognitive Screen (EC-Screen) for the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia of older adults. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the EC-Screen for the detection of MCI and dementia in older adults. METHODS The EC-Screen is a brief digital cognitive test that has been adapted from the Rapid Cognitive Screen test. The EC-Screen uses a cloud-based platform and runs on a tablet. Participants with MCI, dementia, and cognitively healthy controls were recruited from research clinics and the community. The outcomes were the performance of the EC-Screen in distinguishing participants with MCI and dementia from controls, and in distinguishing participants with dementia from those with MCI and controls. The cohort was randomly split into derivation and validation cohorts based on the participants’ disease group. In the derivation cohort, the regression-derived score of the EC-Screen was calculated using binomial logistic regression. Two predictive models were produced. The first model was used to distinguish participants with MCI and dementia from controls, and the second model was used to distinguish participants with dementia from those with MCI and controls. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were calculated. The performances of the two predictive models were tested using the validation cohorts. The relationship between the EC-Screen and paper-and-pencil Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Hong Kong version (HK-MoCA) was evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS A total of 126 controls, 54 participants with MCI, and 63 participants with dementia were included in the study. In differentiating participants with MCI and dementia from controls, the AUC of the EC-Screen in the derivation and validation cohorts was 0.87 and 0.84, respectively. The optimal sensitivity and specificity in the derivation cohorts were 0.81 and 0.80, respectively. In differentiating participants with dementia from those with MCI and controls, the AUC of the derivation and validation cohorts was 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. The optimal sensitivity and specificity in the derivation cohort were 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. There was a significant correlation between the EC-Screen and HK-MoCA (r=–0.67, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS The EC-Screen is suggested to be a promising tool for the detection of MCI and dementia. This test can be self-administered or assisted by a nonprofessional staff or family member. Therefore, the EC-Screen can be a useful tool for case finding in primary health care and community settings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".