ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Text Dialogue Analysis for Primary Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment: Development and Validation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Alzheimer Disease Prediction With Large Language Model-Based Linguistic Feature Analysis: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Application of large language models in clinical decision-making for dry eye disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Empowering mental health professionals in asynchronous online psychotherapy with GenAI.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- WATCH-SS: Developing a Trustworthy and Explainable Modular Framework for Detecting Cognitive Impairment from Spontaneous Speech.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026Article
- An End-to-End Overview of Clinical Speech AI.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2026Article
- Digital Health Technologies Applied in Patients With Early Cognitive Change: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- WATCH-SS: Developing a Trustworthy and Explainable Modular Framework for Detecting Cognitive Impairment from Spontaneous Speech.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Neurological Practice: Real-World Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Prompt Engineering in Clinical Practice: Tutorial for Clinicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Application of large language models in disease diagnosis and treatment.Chinese medical journal · 2025Review
- Analyzing evaluation methods for large language models in the medical field: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Prompt Engineering Paradigms for Medical Applications: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Responsible development of clinical speech AI: Bridging the gap between clinical research and technology.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Exploring the role of ChatGPT in clinical decision-making in otorhinolaryngology: a ChatGPT designed study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Shaping the Future of Older Adult Care: ChatGPT, Advanced AI, and the Transformation of Clinical Practice.JMIR aging · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
backgroundArtificial intelligence models tailored to diagnose cognitive impairment have shown excellent results. However, it is unclear whether large linguistic models can rival specialized models by text alone.
objectiveIn this study, we explored the performance of ChatGPT for primary screening of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and standardized the design steps and components of the prompts.
methodsWe gathered a total of 174 participants from the DementiaBank screening and classified 70% of them into the training set and 30% of them into the test set. Only text dialogues were kept. Sentences were cleaned using a macro code, followed by a manual check. The prompt consisted of 5 main parts, including character setting, scoring system setting, indicator setting, output setting, and explanatory information setting. Three dimensions of variables from published studies were included: vocabulary (ie, word frequency and word ratio, phrase frequency and phrase ratio, and lexical complexity), syntax and grammar (ie, syntactic complexity and grammatical components), and semantics (ie, semantic density and semantic coherence). We used R 4.3.0. for the analysis of variables and diagnostic indicators.
resultsThree additional indicators related to the severity of MCI were incorporated into the final prompt for the model. These indicators were effective in discriminating between MCI and cognitively normal participants: tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon (P<.001), difficulty with complex ideas (P<.001), and memory issues (P<.001). The final GPT-4 model achieved a sensitivity of 0.8636, a specificity of 0.9487, and an area under the curve of 0.9062 on the training set; on the test set, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve reached 0.7727, 0.8333, and 0.8030, respectively.
conclusionsChatGPT was effective in the primary screening of participants with possible MCI. Improved standardization of prompts by clinicians would also improve the performance of the model. It is important to note that ChatGPT is not a substitute for a clinician making a diagnosis.
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.