ArticleScientific reports2024
Developing a fair and interpretable representation of the clock drawing test for mitigating low education and racial bias.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel vision transformer model produces clock drawing test scores as accurate as expert human coders.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Perioperative Artificial Intelligence Driven Integrated Modeling of Surgeries using Anesthetic, Physical and Cognitive Statuses for Predicting Hospital Outcomes.Research square · 2025Article
- A scoping review and evidence gap analysis of clinical AI fairness.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Time Matters: Examine Temporal Effects on Biomedical Language Models.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The clock drawing test (CDT) is a neuropsychological assessment tool to screen an individual's cognitive ability. In this study, we developed a Fair and Interpretable Representation of Clock drawing test (FaIRClocks) to evaluate and mitigate classification bias against people with less than 8 years of education, while screening their cognitive function using an array of neuropsychological measures. In this study, we represented clock drawings by a priorly published 10-dimensional deep learning feature set trained on publicly available data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). These embeddings were further fine-tuned with clocks from a preoperative cognitive screening program at the University of Florida to predict three cognitive scores: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) total score, an attention composite z-score (ATT-C), and a memory composite z-score (MEM-C). ATT-C and MEM-C scores were developed by averaging z-scores based on normative references. The cognitive screening classifiers were initially tested to see their relative performance in patients with low years of education (< = 8 years) versus patients with higher education (> 8 years) and race. Results indicated that the initial unweighted classifiers confounded lower education with cognitive compromise resulting in a 100% type I error rate for this group. Thereby, the samples were re-weighted using multiple fairness metrics to achieve sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV) balance across groups. In summary, we report the FaIRClocks model, with promise to help identify and mitigate bias against people with less than 8 years of education during preoperative cognitive screening.
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.