Development of a simple screening tool for determining cognitive status in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive screening is often a first step to document cognitive status of patients suspected having Alzheimer's disease (AD). Unfortunately, screening neuropsychological tests are often insensitivity in the detection. The goal of this study was to develop a simple and sensitive screening neuropsychological test to facilitate early detection of AD. This study recruited 761 elderly individuals suspected of having AD and presenting various cognitive statuses (mean age: 77.69 ± 8.45 years; proportion of females: 65%; cognitively unimpaired, CU, n = 133; mild cognitive impairment, MCI, n = 231; dementia of Alzheimer's type, DAT, n = 397). This study developed a novel screening neuropsychological test incorporating assessments of the core memory deficits typical of early AD and an interview on memory function with an informant. The proposed History-based Artificial Intelligence-Show Chwan Assessment of Cognition (HAI-SAC) was assessed in terms of psychometric properties, test time, and discriminative ability. The results were compared with those obtained using other common screening tests, including Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and an extracted Mini-Mental State Examination score from CASI. HAI-SAC demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Factor analysis revealed two factors: memory (semantic and contextual) and cognition-related information from informants. The assessment performance of HAI-SAC was strongly correlated with that of the common screening neuropsychological tests addressed in this study. HAI-SAC outperformed the other tests in differentiating CU individuals from patients with MCI (sensitivity: 0.87; specificity: 0.58; area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78) or DAT (sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.89; AUC: 0.98). Performance of HAI-SAC on differentiating MCI from DAT was on par with performances of other tests (sensitivity: 0.78; specificity: 0.84; AUC: 0.87), while the test time was less than one quarter that of CASI and half that of MoCA. HAI-SAC is psychometrically sound, cost-effective, and sensitive in discriminating the cognitive status of AD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".