A novel framework to estimate cognitive impairment via finger interaction with digital devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measuring cognitive function is essential for characterizing brain health and tracking cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s Disease and other neurodegenerative conditions. Current tools to accurately evaluate cognitive impairment typically rely on a battery of questionnaires administered during clinical visits which is essential for the acquisition of repeated measurements in longitudinal studies. Previous studies have shown that the remote data collection of passively monitored daily interaction with personal digital devices can measure motor signs in the early stages of synucleinopathies, as well as facilitate longitudinal patient assessment in the real-world scenario with high patient compliance. This was achieved by the automatic discovery of patterns in the time series of keystroke dynamics, i.e. the time required to press and release keys, by machine learning algorithms. In this work, our hypothesis is that the typing patterns generated from user-device interaction may reflect relevant features of the effects of cognitive impairment caused by neurodegeneration. We use machine learning algorithms to estimate cognitive performance through the analysis of keystroke dynamic patterns that were extracted from mechanical and touchscreen keyboard use in a dataset of cognitively normal (n = 39, 51% male) and cognitively impaired subjects (n = 38, 60% male). These algorithms are trained and evaluated using a novel framework that integrates items from multiple neuropsychological and clinical scales into cognitive subdomains to generate a more holistic representation of multifaceted clinical signs. In our results, we see that these models based on typing input achieve moderate correlations with verbal memory, non-verbal memory and executive function subdomains [Spearman’s ρ between 0.54 (P < 0.001) and 0.42 (P < 0.001)] and a weak correlation with language/verbal skills [Spearman’s ρ 0.30 (P < 0.05)]. In addition, we observe a moderate correlation between our typing-based approach and the Total Montreal Cognitive Assessment score [Spearman’s ρ 0.48 (P < 0.001)]. Finally, we show that these machine learning models can perform better by using our subdomain framework that integrates the information from multiple neuropsychological scales as opposed to using the individual items that make up these scales. Our results support our hypothesis that typing patterns are able to reflect the effects of neurodegeneration in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease and that this new subdomain framework both helps the development of machine learning models and improves their interpretability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".