Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40986851›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

Handwriting in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Assessment and Machine Learning-Based Screening.

Simone Toffoli, Carlo Abbate, Francesca Lunardini, Edoardo Corno, Nicholas Diani, Alessia Gallucci, Emanuele Tomasini, Pietro Davide Trimarchi, Simona Ferrante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Simone ToffoliDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-1362
Carlo AbbateIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0368-3834
Francesca LunardiniCenter for Clinical Neuroscience, Hospital Los Madroños, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4705-6733
Edoardo CornoDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5705-4862
Nicholas DianiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1822-0590
Alessia GallucciIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8520-674X
Emanuele TomasiniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0238-7986
Pietro Davide TrimarchiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3282-5261
Simona FerranteDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-1965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitive DysfunctionHandwritingMachine LearningAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of Resultshandwritingmachine learningmild cognitive impairmentparole-non-parole testsensorized ink pen

Identifiers

PMID40986851
PMCPMC12504891

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.