A new method for community-based intelligent screening of early Alzheimer’s disease populations based on digital biomarkers of the writing process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In response to the shortcomings of the current Alzheimer's disease (AD) early populations assessment, which is based on neuropsychological scales with high subjectivity, low accuracy of repeated measurements, tedious process and dependence on physicians, it was found that digital biomarkers based on the writing process can effectively characterize the cognitive deficits of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD. Methods: This study designed a digital writing assessment paradigm, extracted dynamic handwriting and image data during the paradigm assessment process, and analyzed digital biomarkers of the writing process to assess subjects' cognitive functions. A total of 72 subjects, including 34 health controls (HC) and 38 MCI due to AD, were enrolled in this study. Results: Their combined screening efficacy of digital biomarkers based on the MCI writing process due to AD populations having an area under curve (AUC) of 0.918, and a confidence interval (CI) of 0.854-0.982, was higher than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (AUC = 0.859, CI = 0.772-0.947) and the Mini-mental State Examination Scale (AUC = 0.783, CI = 0.678-0.888). Conclusion: Therefore, digital biomarkers based on the writing process can characterize and quantify the cognitive function of MCI due to AD populations at a fine-grained level, which is expected to be a new method for intelligent screening and early warning of early AD populations in a community-based physician-free setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".