ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Towards cost-effective cognitive impairment diagnosis systems by emulating doctors' reasoning with deep reinforcement learning.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment diagnosis in aging adults is of great significance but faces challenges like high costs and complex clinical reasoning. Traditional clinical procedures often require comprehensive neuropsychological assessments involving numerous cognitive tests, interviews, or biomarker analyses. While these approaches maximize diagnostic accuracy, they are inherently time-consuming, expensive, and place a heavy burden on both patients and clinicians.
methodsThis study used data from the CHARLS-HCAP program, which included 1,478 participants classified as dementia. We propose a new framework for cost-effective cognitive impairment diagnosis system using deep reinforcement learning. The diagnostic workflow is formalized as a sequential decision-making process in which the agent dynamically determines which features (i.e. cognitive tests and questionnaires) to acquire at each step. Combined with a supervised classifier serves as a virtual ‘clinician’, the currently available information is used to provide probabilistic feedback on the patient's state. The Rainbow DQN-based agent is trained end-to-end to learn an optimal query strategy that mimics a physician's reasoning: it adaptively selects subsequent cognitive assessments and ultimately renders a categorical diagnosis of dementia severity, aiming to maximize expected diagnostic accuracy while minimizing cumulative costs, representing patient burden and resource utilization.
resultsIn our study, the reinforcement learning–based diagnostic system achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.877 (micro-average) and 0.823 (macro-average) during autonomous inquiry. It attained state-of-the-art diagnostic accuracy while using only an average of 14.76 questionnaire items per patient—reducing, the total estimated assessment time by 48.3% compared to full-feature supervised learning baselines. This reduction corresponds to a meaningful decrease in assessment time cost and cognitive burden for patients. Ablation experiments also validated the effectiveness of our components, highlighting the critical role of reward exploration. Finally, through system inquiry quality analysis and policy distillation visualization, the parameters of the neural network were approximated and converted into diagnostic pathways, thereby enhancing clinicians’ and patients’ trust in the model.
conclusionsWe developed a reinforcement learning–based diagnostic system for cognitive status within a population cohort. This model effectively optimizes the long-standing economic and promotional issues of community dementia screening, demonstrating strong accuracy, economic efficiency, and methodological advances. Furthermore, by analyzing the diagnostic logic, we enhanced clinicians’ and patients’ trust in the model.
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.