ArticleBrain sciences2023
Detection of Alzheimer's Disease Using Logistic Regression and Clock Drawing Errors.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. 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.
- Qualitative Analysis of Constructional Errors in Neurodegenerative Conditions: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- A dynamic risk prediction framework for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias with interpretability.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for early Alzheimer's diagnosis using enhanced grey relational features and multimodal data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Self-Explainable Dynamic Risk Monitoring Framework for Predicting Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The characteristics and performance of health data domains in supporting dementia identification: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is an incurable disorder that accounts for up to 70% of all dementia cases. While the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia has increased by more than 160% in the last 30 years, the rates of undetected cases remain critically high. The present work aims to address the underdetection of Alzheimer's disease by proposing four logistic regression models that can be used as a foundation for community-based screening tools that do not require the participation of medical professionals. Our models make use of individual clock drawing errors as well as complementary patient data that is highly available and easily collectible. All models were controlled for age, education, and gender. The discriminative ability of the models was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and calibration plots were used to assess calibration. Finally, decision curve analysis was used to quantify clinical utility. We found that among 10 possible CDT errors, only 3 were informative for the detection of Alzheimer's disease. Our base regression model, containing only control variables and clock drawing errors, produced an AUC of 0.825. The other three models were built as extensions of the base model with the step-wise addition of three groups of complementary data, namely cognitive features (semantic fluency score), genetic predisposition (family history of dementia), and cardio-vascular features (BMI, blood pressure). The addition of verbal fluency scores significantly improved the AUC compared to the base model (0.91 AUC). However, further additions did not make a notable difference in discriminatory power. All models showed good calibration. In terms of clinical utility, the derived models scored similarly and greatly outperformed the base model. Our results suggest that the combination of clock symmetry and clock time errors plus verbal fluency scores may be a suitable candidate for developing accessible screening tools for Alzheimer's disease. However, future work should validate our findings in larger and more diverse datasets.
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.