Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Characteristics of Drawing Process Differentiate Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies
Yasunori Yamada, Masatomo Kobayashi, Kaoru Shinkawa, Miyuki Nemoto, Miho Ota, Kiyotaka Nemoto, Tetsuaki Arai. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2022
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups. Machine-learning models using these features achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 for AD versus CN, 0.88 for LBD versus CN, and 0.77 for AD versus LBD. Our results indicate how different types of drawing features were particularly discriminative between the diagnostic groups, and how the combination of these features can facilitate the identification and differentiation of AD and DLB.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Yamada, Y., Kobayashi, M., Shinkawa, K., Nemoto, M., Ota, M., Nemoto, K., et al. (2022). Characteristics of Drawing Process Differentiate Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220546
Vancouver
Yamada Y, Kobayashi M, Shinkawa K, Nemoto M, Ota M, Nemoto K, et al. Characteristics of Drawing Process Differentiate Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2022. doi:10.3233/jad-220546. PMID: 36155515.
BibTeX
@article{yamada2022-36155515,
author = {Yamada, Yasunori and Kobayashi, Masatomo and Shinkawa, Kaoru and Nemoto, Miyuki and Ota, Miho and Nemoto, Kiyotaka and Arai, Tetsuaki},
title = {{Characteristics of Drawing Process Differentiate Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3233/jad-220546},
pmid = {36155515},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220546}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups.
- Machine-learning models using these features achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 for AD versus CN, 0.88 for LBD versus CN, and 0.77 for AD versus LBD.
- Our results indicate how different types of drawing features were particularly discriminative between the diagnostic groups, and how the combination of these features can facilitate the identification and differentiation of AD and DLB.
Study details
- Participants47
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 47 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36155515) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “convolutional”
205 studies in the library carry the topic tag “convolutional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 205 tagged studies.