A voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener for dementia detection in the community: Development and validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To facilitate community-based dementia screening, we developed a voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener (digital cognitive screener, DCS). This proof-of-concept study aimed to investigate the reliability, validity as well as the feasibility of the DCS among community-dwelling older adults in China. Methods: Eligible participants completed demographic, clinical, and the DCS. Diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia was made based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (MCI: MoCA < 23, dementia: MoCA < 14). Time and venue for test administration were recorded and reported. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability were examined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to examine the discriminate validity of the DCS in detecting MCI and dementia. Results: < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.84). Area under the curves (AUCs) of the DCS were 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) and 0.77 (0.67, 086) for dementia and MCI detection, respectively. At the optimal cut-off (7/8), the DCS showed excellent sensitivity (100%) and good specificity (80%) for dementia detection. Conclusion: The DCS is a feasible, reliable and valid digital dementia screening tool for older adults. The applicability of the DCS in a larger-scale community-based screening stratified by age and education levels warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".