Development and first‐stage validation of a digital version of the Digit Symbol Substitution test for use in assessing cognitive function in older people with diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe the development and report the first-stage validation of a digital version of the digit symbol substitution test (DSST), for assessment of cognitive function in older people with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of experts was convened to conceptualize and build a digital version of the DSST and develop a machine-learning (ML) algorithm to analyse the inputs. One hundred individuals with type 2 diabetes (aged ≥ 60 years) were invited to participate in a one-time meeting in which both the digital and the pencil-and-paper (P&P) versions of the DSST were administered. Information pertaining to demographics, laboratory measurements, and diabetes indices was collected. The correlation between the digital and P&P versions of the test was determined. Additionally, as part of the validation process, the performance of the digital version in people with and without known risk factors for cognitive impairment was analysed. RESULTS: The ML model yielded an overall accuracy of 89.1%. A strong correlation was found between the P&P and digital versions (r = 0.76, p < 0.001) of the DSST, as well as between the ML model and the manual reading of the digital DSST (r = 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the development of and provides first-stage validation data for a newly developed digital cognitive assessment tool that may be used for screening and surveillance of cognitive function in older people with diabetes. More studies are needed to further validate this tool, especially when self-administered and in different clinical 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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".