ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022
Modeling Users' Cognitive Performance Using Digital Pen Features.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of machine learning in measurement of ageing and geriatric diseases: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2023Pooled it
- Developing an accessible dementia assessment tool: Leveraging a residual network, the trail making test, and demographic data.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- Automated versus human scoring of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test: a rapid review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Review
- Initial specialist validation of clinical decision support recommendations from a machine learning-enabled digital cognitive assessment.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital pen features model characteristics of sketches and user behavior, and can be used for various supervised machine learning (ML) applications, such as multi-stroke sketch recognition and user modeling. In this work, we use a state-of-the-art set of more than 170 digital pen features, which we implement and make publicly available. The feature set is evaluated in the use case of analyzing paper-pencil-based neurocognitive assessments in the medical domain. Most cognitive assessments, for dementia screening for example, are conducted with a pen on normal paper. We record these tests with a digital pen as part of a new interactive cognitive assessment tool with automatic analysis of pen input. The physician can, first, observe the sketching process in real-time on a mobile tablet, e.g., in telemedicine settings or to follow Covid-19 distancing regulations. Second, the results of an automatic test analysis are presented to the physician in real-time, thereby reducing manual scoring effort and producing objective reports. As part of our evaluation we examine how accurately different feature-based, supervised ML models can automatically score cognitive tests, with and without semantic content analysis. A series of ML-based sketch recognition experiments is conducted, evaluating 10 modern off-the-shelf ML classifiers (i.e., SVMs, Deep Learning, etc.) on a sketch data set which we recorded with 40 subjects from a geriatrics daycare clinic. In addition, an automated ML approach (AutoML) is explored for fine-tuning and optimizing classification performance on the data set, achieving superior recognition accuracies. Using standard ML techniques our feature set outperforms all previous approaches on the cognitive tests considered, i.e., the Clock Drawing Test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, and the Trail Making Test, by automatically scoring cognitive tests with up to 87.5% accuracy in a binary classification task.
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.