MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412830063 · doi:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100252

An Automated Mobile Cognitive Test for the Identification of Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-sectional Feasibility and Diagnostic Study

2025· article· en· W4412830063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Y. Tee, Li Feng Tan, Santhosh Kumar Seetharaman, Lian Leng Low, Zhi Peng Ong, Munirah Bashil, Hock‐Hai Teo

Bibliographic record

VenueMayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsIdentification (biology)CognitionCognitive impairmentTest (biology)Cross-sectional studyComputer scienceMedicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To develop Digital Processing Speed Test (DPST), a free, automated, multilingual, artificial intelligence-based cognitive testing application, with the aim to enhance recognition of cognitive impairment in underserved communities by leveraging mobile health to improve cognitive testing's accessibility. Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional feasibility and diagnostic study, we determined the test performance of DPST for the identification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, compared with traditional cognitive tests, such as Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The study was conducted from January 19, 2021, to November 12, 2023. In total, 476 adult participants were recruited by consecutive sampling at waiting areas of primary and secondary care clinics. The participants completed MMSE and MoCA with trained assessors and then performed DPST independently on a mobile device. The reference standard was a clinical diagnosis of MCI/dementia by a memory specialist blinded to the DPST score. Results: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that area under the curves were similar for the 3 tests (MMSE, 0.862; MoCA, 0.888; DPST, 0.861). Likewise, sensitivity (DPST, 85.2%; MMSE, 85.2%; MoCA, 90.2%), negative likelihood ratio (DPST, 0.197; MMSE, 0.193; MoCA, 0.129), specificity (DPST, 75.0%; MMSE, 76.5%; MoCA, 76.2%), and positive likelihood ratio (DPST, 3.41; MMSE, 3.62; MoCA, 3.79) were similar. Conclusion: Digital Processing Speed Test, a free, automated, multilingual cognitive test conducted on a mobile device, has similar test performance to MMSE and MoCA. Nonetheless, DPST does not capture the multidomain cognitive deficits that characterize MCI/dementia. Moreover, test-retest reliability and interrater agreement of artificial intelligence-based handwriting recognition needs further confirmation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMayo Clinic Proceedings Digital HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207