ArticleScientific reports2025
The clinical significance of an AI-based assumption model for neurocognitive diseases using a novel dual-task system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Measurement Tools for Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on dual-task sensor-based motion analysis for dementia detection.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dual-task composed of gait or stepping tasks combined with cognitive tasks has been well-established as valuable tools for detecting neurocognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment and early-stage Alzheimer's disease. We previously developed a novel dual-task system with high accuracy for differentiating patients with neurocognitive disorders from healthy controls. In this study, we aimed to elucidate whether the output value obtained through artificial intelligence assumptions has clinical meaning other than diagnosis labelling. This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. Patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, or mild cognitive impairment who participated in our previous dual-task experiment and completed all routine neuropsychological assessments at our hospital within one year of the experimental date were eligible for inclusion in the neurocognitive disorders group. Participants in the healthy control group were recruited from community-dwelling older adults. The correlation between the output value, "y-value", and each neuropsychological test: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Addenbrook's Cognitive Examination, Logical Memory tests, Frontal Assessment Battery, and digit span were assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient. We also evaluated the correlation between the MMSE and those neurocognitive tests. To elucidate the diagnostic availability of the dual-task system and the MMSE on this dataset, we conducted a receiver operating characteristic analysis. We enrolled 97 participants in the neurocognitive disorders group: 42 with Alzheimer's disease dementia, 11 with dementia with Lewy bodies, and 44 with mild cognitive impairment. Additionally, 249 participants were included in the healthy control group. Although the y-value showed significant correlations with several tests, the MMSE demonstrated much stronger significant correlations with a broader range of cognitive tests. Meanwhile, its sensitivity and specificity were 0.969 and 0.912, respectively, and the area under the curve was 0.981, which was higher than the 0.934 of the MMSE. Our new AI-driven dual-task system has a high ability to predict neurocognitive disorders. However, the clinical significance of its output values is limited to screening for neurocognitive disorders and does not extend to estimating cognitive function. When using this system in clinical practice, it is essential to understand its limitations and select the appropriate usage scenarios.
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.