ArticleFamily practice2026
Validation of an artificial intelligence-based drawing platform against the Clock Drawing Test for cognitive screening: a comparative study between Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls.
Article in Family practice, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional manual Clock Drawing Tests (CDTs) are widely used for cognitive screening but are constrained by human subjectivity and alphanumeric literacy or cultural barriers.
objectiveThis study validated an open-source artificial intelligence (AI)-based drawing platform utilizing universal, pre-linguistic Lea symbols against manual CDT metrics for cognitive screening and differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD) from healthy controls (HCs).
methodsIn this cross-sectional validation study, 111 participants aged ≥65 years, 55 clinically diagnosed AD patients and 56 HCs, were evaluated. Participants completed manual CDTs (6-point and 10-point scoring) and the AI-based drawing task on a tablet. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, Cohen's kappa (κ), and multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age and gender.
resultsThe AI model demonstrated clear diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve = 0.868), with overall accuracy comparable to the 10-point manual scale. An optimal diagnostic cut-off of <27.00 points, identified in this study, achieved 83.6% sensitivity and 75.0% specificity, demonstrating substantial agreement with clinical diagnosis (κ = 0.586, P < 0.001). Crucially, the AI-based drawing platform flagged 14 HCs (25.0%) as at-risk who were classified as intact by conventional manual CDT scales. Multivariable regression confirmed the AI score as a powerful independent predictor of AD status after adjusting for demographics (odds ratio: 0.940, 95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.979, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe AI-based drawing platform provides an objective, automated alternative to traditional CDTs. Its sensitivity to subtle visuoconstructional variations positions it as an effective, low-cost triage tool to optimize early neurological referrals in primary care.
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.