Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Dementia Using Motion Data: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Dementia is a neurodegenerative disease resulting in the loss of cognitive and psychological functions. Artificial intelligence (AI) may help in detection and screening of dementia; however, little is known in this area. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate AI interventions for detection of dementia using motion data. <b><i>Method:</i></b> The review followed the framework proposed by O’Malley’s and Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist for reporting the results. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until November 2020, in five bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore. We included studies aimed at the deployment and testing or implementation of AI interventions using motion data for the detection of dementia among a diverse population, encompassing varying age, sex, gender, economic backgrounds, and ethnicity, extending to their health care providers across multiple health care settings. Studies were excluded if they focused on Parkinson’s or Huntington’s disease. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, titles, and then read the full-texts. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. The reference lists of included studies were also screened. <b><i>Results:</i></b> After removing duplicates, 2,632 articles were obtained. After title and abstract screening and full-text screening, 839 articles were considered for categorization. The authors categorized the papers into six categories, and data extraction and synthesis was performed on 20 included papers from the motion tracking data category. The included studies assessed cognitive performance (<i>n</i> = 5, 25%); screened dementia and cognitive decline (<i>n</i> = 8, 40%); investigated visual behaviours (<i>n</i> = 4, 20%); and analyzed motor behaviors (<i>n</i> = 3, 15%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> We presented evidence of AI systems being employed in the detection of dementia, showcasing the promising potential of motion tracking within this domain. Although some progress has been made in this field recently, there remain notable research gaps that require further exploration and investigation. Future endeavors need to compare AI interventions using motion data with traditional screening methods or other tech-enabled dementia detection mechanisms. Besides, future works should aim at understanding how gender and sex, and ethnic and cultural sensitivity can contribute to refining AI interventions, ensuring they are accessible, equitable, and beneficial across all society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".