MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119033826 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_105895

Leveraging Explainable Artificial Intelligence to Identify Key Features required for Differentiating Clinical Neurocognitive Disorder Diagnoses using Toronto Cognitive Assessment

2025· article· en· W7119033826 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hamed Azami, Sandra E. Black, Morris Freedman, Stephen C. Strother, David F. Tang‐Wai, Carmela Tartaglia, Sanjeev Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalBaycrest HospitalOntario Brain InstituteOccupational Cancer Research CentreMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkToronto Dementia Research AllianceUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityMedical diagnosisDementiaCognitionNeurocognitiveSupport vector machineCognitive Assessment SystemMemory clinic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Accurate clinical diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and non‐amnestic MCI (naMCI) is essential for timely management. The diagnosis is made using a range of factors including cognitive testing. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)‐based SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) is a machine learning interpretability tool that can provide insights into specific features that drive classification decisions. We used XAI with support vector machines (SVM) to identify key cognitive features of Toronto Cognitive Assessment (TorCA), a user‐friendly cognitive assessment administered by frontline clinicians, for differentiating neurocognitive disorder diagnoses. Method We used data from the Toronto Dementia Research Alliance (TDRA) database, comprising of participants with AD, aMCI, naMCI, or normal cognition (NC) seen in memory clinics across Toronto. An SVM model with radial basis function (RBF) kernel was configured with 10‐fold cross‐validation. XAI was integrated using SHAP values to identify the most important critical features contributing to the model predictions. Classification accuracies, defined as the proportion of correct classifications for each pairwise comparison, were calculated using TorCA total scores and specific features from subtests. Result We included 695 participants (149 AD, 189 aMCI, 304 naMCI, and 53 NC). Classification accuracy for distinguishing AD vs NC was excellent, whether using all TorCA subtests (0.97±0.03), or the top 5 features (0.96±0.04) (Delayed Recall, Immediate Recall Trials 1 and 2, Sentence Comprehension, Benson Figure Recall), but lower (0.93±0.06) with only TorCA total score. Classification accuracy for MCI or naMCI vs NC was also very good (0.86±0.03 to 0.89±0.04) using the top 5 features. Conclusion TorCA combined with XAI can accurately differentiate common clinical neurocognitive disorder phenotypes in ambulatory settings. These findings point to specific cognitive subtests important for diagnosis and may help improve the efficiency of cognitive testing. Future studies should investigate the differentiation of other neurocognitive disorders using these tools and further validate these findings using formal neuropsychological testing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→