Differential cognitive functioning in the digital clock drawing test in AD-MCI and PD-MCI populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is common in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD), but there are differences in pathogenesis and cognitive performance between Mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD-MCI) and Parkinson’s disease with Mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) populations. Studies have shown that assessments based on the digital clock drawing test (dCDT) can effectively reflect cognitive deficits. Based on this, we proposed the following research hypothesis: there is a difference in cognitive functioning between AD-MCI and PD-MCI populations in the CDT, and the two populations can be effectively distinguished based on this feature. Methods To test this hypothesis, we designed the dCDT to extract digital biomarkers that can characterize and quantify cognitive function differences between AD-MCI and PD-MCI populations. We enrolled a total of 40 AD-MCI patients, 40 PD-MCI patients, 41 PD with normal cognition (PD-NC) patients and 40 normal cognition (NC) controls. Results Through a cross-sectional study, we revealed a difference in cognitive function between AD-MCI and PD-MCI populations in the dCDT, which distinguished AD-MCI from PD-MCI patients, the area under the roc curve (AUC) = 0.923, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.866–0.983. The AUC for effective differentiation between AD-MCI and PD-MCI patients with high education (≥12 years of education) was 0.968, CI = 0.927–1.000. By correlation analysis, we found that the overall plotting of task performance score (VFDB1) correlated with the [visuospatial/executive] subtest score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale (Spearman rank correlation coefficient [R] = 0.472, p < 0.001). Conclusion The dCDT is a tool that can rapidly and accurately characterize and quantify differences in cognitive functioning in AD-MCI and PD-MCI populations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".