Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38157230›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Text Dialogue Analysis for Primary Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment: Development and Validation Study.

Changyu Wang, Siru Liu, Aiqing Li, Jialin Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. An End-to-End Overview of Clinical Speech AI.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Large Language Models in Neurological Practice: Real-World Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  9. Prompt Engineering in Clinical Practice: Tutorial for Clinicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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 · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Changyu WangDepartment of Medical Informatics, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4548-331X
Siru LiuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5003-5354
Aiqing LiDepartment of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8630-6611
Jialin LiuDepartment of Medical Informatics, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1369-4625

Funding

TREATMENT OF DEPRESSION IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASEP50AG005133 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAMBOH, M. ILYAS · 1985 to 2019
$43.0M
NIA NIH HHS P50 AG005133
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceCognitive DysfunctionHumansLanguageLinguisticsSemanticsAIAI modelsartificial intelligenceChatGPTcliniciancognitive impairmentdesigndiagnosismild cognitive impairmentmodelprimary screeningprompt designscreeningstandardization

Identifiers

PMID38157230
PMCPMC10787336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.