ArticleJMIR aging2025
Handwriting in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Assessment and Machine Learning-Based Screening.
Article in JMIR aging, 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.
- Digital Handwriting Kinematics and Physical Performance According to Pentagon-Copy Performance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Handwriting speed and pen motor control in older adults with and without cognitive impairment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a precursor of dementia. Therefore, MCI identification and monitoring are crucial to delaying dementia onset. Given the limits of existing clinical tests, objective support tools are needed.
objectiveThis work investigates quantitative handwriting analysis, tailored to enable domestic monitoring, as a noninvasive approach for MCI screening and assessment.
methodsA sensorized ink pen, used on paper and equipped with sensors, memory, and a communication unit, was used for data acquisition. The tasks included writing a grocery list and free text to mimic daily life handwriting, and a clinical dictation test (parole-non-parole [PnP] test), featuring regular, irregular, and made-up words, aimed at assessing MCI dysgraphia. From the recorded data, 106 indicators describing the performance in terms of time, fluency, exerted force, and pen inclination were computed. A total of 57 patients with MCI were recruited, of whom 45 performed a test-retest protocol. The indicators were examined to assess their test-retest reliability. The indicators from the test repetition were used to assess their relationship with the scores of clinical tests via correlation analysis. For the PnP test, differences in the indicators among the 3 types of words were statistically investigated. These analyses were conducted separately for the cursive (2/3 of the sample) and block letters (1/3 of the sample) allographs, with the level of significance set at 5%. Data from healthy older adults were available for the grocery list (34 participants) and free text (45 participants) tasks. These were exploited to build machine learning classification models for the distinction between patients with MCI and healthy controls.
resultsWhen dealing with reliability, 93% and 44% of the indicators were characterized by a significant reliability of at least moderate intensity for cursive and block letters respectively. As for the correlation analysis, patients with preserved cognitive status and daily life functionality were associated with significantly better temporal performances, both in free writing and PnP. The analysis of PnP highlighted the presence of surface dysgraphia in the recruited sample, as irregular words showed significantly worse temporal indicators with respect to regular and made-up ones. The classification models' built-in free writing data achieved accuracies ranging from 0.80 to 0.93 and F
conclusionsThe presented results suggest the suitability of ecological handwriting analysis for the all-around monitoring of MCI, from early screening to disease progression evaluation.
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.