ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Non-equivalence of sub-tasks of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test with convolutional neural networks to discriminate mild cognitive impairment.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Potential of Automated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using Non-Neuroimaging Data: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) is a tool to evaluate cognitive function. Despite its usefulness, its scoring criteria are as complicated as its figure, leading to a low reliability. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility of using the convolutional neural network (CNN) model based on the RCFT as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and investigate the non-equivalence of sub-tasks of the RCFT.
methodsA total of 354 RCFT images (copy and recall conditions) were obtained from 103 healthy controls (HCs) and 74 patients with amnestic MCI (a-MCI). The CNN model was trained to predict MCI based on the RCFT-copy and RCFT-recall images. To evaluate the CNN model's performance, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score were measured. To compare discriminative power, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsThe CNN model based on the RCFT-recall was the most accurate in discriminating a-MCI (accuracy: RCFT-copy = 0.846, RCFT-recall = 0.872, MoCA-K = 0.818). Furthermore, the CNN model based on the RCFT could better discriminate MCI than the MoCA-K (AUC: RCFT-copy = 0.851, RCFT-recall = 0.88, MoCA-K = 0.848). The CNN model based on the RCFT-recall was superior to the RCFT-copy.
conclusionThese findings suggest the feasibility of using the CNN model based on the RCFT as a surrogate for a conventional screening tool for a-MCI and demonstrate the superiority of the CNN model based on the RCFT-recall to the RCFT-copy.
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.