MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412744417 · doi:10.2196/67446

Machine Learning–Based Cognitive Assessment With The Autonomous Cognitive Examination: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4412744417 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Calvin Howard, Amy Johnson, Sheena Baratono, Katharina Faust, Joseph Peedicail, Marcus Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMitacs
KeywordsCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentIntraclass correlationInter-rater reliabilityCognitive testPopulationRandomized controlled trialDementiaMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyRating scaleCognitive impairmentPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The rising prevalence of dementia necessitates a scalable solution to cognitive assessments. The Autonomous Cognitive Examination (ACoE) is a foundational cognitive test for the phenotyping of cognitive symptoms across the primary cognitive domains. However, while the ACoE has been internally validated, it has not been externally validated in a clinical population, and its ability to render accurate appraisals of cognition is unknown. Further, it is unclear if these phenotypic assessments are useful in clinical tasks such as screening patients with and those without impairments. Objective: The objective of this study is to validate the ability of the ACoE to reliably phenotype cognition and to act as a screening examination relative to standard paper-based tests. Methods: To compare the evaluations of the ACoE to established paper-based tests, 46 patients with neurological disorders were enrolled in a randomized crossover study and received either the ACoE or a standard paper-based cognitive test. Patients received either the Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination-3 (ACE-3; n=35) or the Montreal Cognitive Examination (MoCA; n=11). We evaluated 3 primary metrics of the ACoE's performance relative to paper-based tests: (1) interrater reliability of overall cognitive scores, (2) interrater reliability of cognitive domain scores, and (3) ability to classify patients similarly to paper-based tests. Results: The ACoE's overall cognitive assessments were significantly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]=0.89; P<.001). Each cognitive domain's assessments were also significantly reliable, including attention (ICC=0.74; PFWE<.001), language (ICC=0.89; PFWE<.001), memory (ICC=0.91; PFWE<.001), fluency (ICC=0.74; PFWE<.001), and visuospatial function (ICC=0.78; PFWE<.001). The ACoE was also able to successfully diagnose patients similarly to both paper-based tests (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.96; PFWE<.001). Conclusions: In this study, we evaluated if the ACoE could reliably phenotype cognitive symptoms relative to the assessments of established standard paper-based cognitive assessments. We found that the ACoE reliably phenotypes patient cognition, which can be used to screen patients. In the future, these cognitive phenotypes may be used to diagnose specific etiologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207