ArticleIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine2022
Alzheimer's Disease Assessments Optimized for Diagnostic Accuracy and Administration Time.
Article in IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mini review of transforming dementia care in China with data-driven insights: overcoming diagnostic and time-delayed barriers.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Review
- Enhancing neuropsychological assessment clinical pathways in Parkinson's disease through the use of technology.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Are Advanced Clinical Practitioners perfectly placed to re-report neuroimages to support clinical diagnosis of dementia?International journal for advancing practice · 2023Article
- Hierarchical Two-Stage Cost-Sensitive Clinical Decision Support System for Screening Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite the potential of machine learning techniques to improve dementia diagnostic processes, research outcomes are often not readily translated to or adopted in clinical practice. Importantly, the time taken to administer diagnostic assessment has yet to be taken into account in feature-selection based optimisation for dementia diagnosis. We address these issues by considering the impact of assessment time as a practical constraint for feature selection of cognitive and functional assessments in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis.
methodsWe use three different feature selection algorithms to select informative subsets of dementia assessment items from a large open-source dementia dataset. We use cost-sensitive feature selection to optimise our feature selection results for assessment time as well as diagnostic accuracy. To encourage clinical adoption and further evaluation of our proposed accuracy-vs-cost optimisation algorithms, we also implement a sandbox-like toolbox with graphical user interface to evaluate user-chosen subsets of assessment items.
resultsWe find that there are subsets of accuracy-cost optimised assessment items that can perform better in terms of diagnostic accuracy and/or total assessment time than most other standard assessments. DISCUSSION: Overall, our analysis and accompanying sandbox tool can facilitate clinical users and other stakeholders to apply their own domain knowledge to analyse and decide which dementia diagnostic assessment items are useful, and aid the redesigning of dementia diagnostic assessments. Clinical Impact (Clinical Research): By optimising diagnostic accuracy and assessment time, we redesign predictive and efficient dementia diagnostic assessments and develop a sandbox interface to facilitate evaluation and testing by clinicians and non-specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.