Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Through Natural Language and Touchscreen Typing Processing
Ntracha A, Iakovakis D, Hadjidimitriou S, Charisis VS, Tsolaki M, Hadjileontiadis LJ.. Frontiers in digital health, 2020-10-08
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an identified prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), often evades detection in the early stages of the condition, when existing diagnostic methods are employed in the clinical setting. From an alternative perspective, smartphone interaction behavioral data, unobtrusively acquired in a non-clinical setting, can assist the screening and monitoring of MCI and its symptoms' progression. In this vein, the diagnostic ability of digital biomarkers, drawn from Fine Motor Impairment (FMI)- and Spontaneous Written Speech (SWS)-related data analysis, are examined here. In particular, keystroke dynamics derived from touchscreen typing activities, using Convolutional Neural Networks, along with linguistic features of SWS through Natural Language Processing (NLP), were used to distinguish amongst MCI patients and healthy controls (HC). Analytically, three indices of FMI (rigidity, bradykinesia and alternate finger tapping) and nine NLP features, related with lexical richness, grammatical, syntactical complexity, and word deficits, formed the feature space. The proposed approach was tested on two demographically matched groups of 11 MCI patients and 12 HC, having undergone the same neuropsychological tests, producing 4,930 typing sessions and 78 short texts, within 6 months, for analysis. A cascaded-classifier scheme was realized under three different feature combinations and validated via a Leave-One-Subject-Out cross-validation scheme. The acquired results have shown: (a) keystroke features with a k-NN classifier achieved an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68-0.88; specificity/sensitivity (SP/SE): 0.64/0.92], (b) NLP features with a Logistic regression classifier achieved an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-0.85; SP/SE: 0.80/0.71), and (c) an ensemble model with the fusion of keystroke and NLP features resulted in AUC of 0.75 (95% CI:0.63-0.86; SP/SE 0.90/0.60). The current findings indicate the potentiality of new digital biomarkers to capture early stages of cognitive decline, providing a highly specific remote screening tool in-the-wild.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ntracha, A., Iakovakis, D., Hadjidimitriou, S., Charisis, V. S., Tsolaki, M., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2020). Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Through Natural Language and Touchscreen Typing Processing. Frontiers in digital health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2020.567158
Vancouver
Ntracha A, Iakovakis D, Hadjidimitriou S, Charisis VS, Tsolaki M, Hadjileontiadis LJ. Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Through Natural Language and Touchscreen Typing Processing. Frontiers in digital health. 2020. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2020.567158. PMID: 34713039.
BibTeX
@article{ntracha2020-34713039,
author = {Ntracha, A. and Iakovakis, D. and Hadjidimitriou, S. and Charisis, V. S. and Tsolaki, M. and Hadjileontiadis, L. J.},
title = {{Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Through Natural Language and Touchscreen Typing Processing}},
journal = {Frontiers in digital health},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3389/fdgth.2020.567158},
pmid = {34713039},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2020.567158}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The acquired results have shown: (a) keystroke features with a k-NN classifier achieved an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68-0.88; specificity/sensitivity (SP/SE): 0.64/0.92], (b) NLP features with a Logistic regression classifier achieved an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-0.85; SP/SE: 0.80/0.71), and (c) an ensemble model with the fusion of keystroke and NLP features resulted in AUC of 0.75 (95% CI:0.63-0.86; SP/SE 0.90/0.60).
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in digital health) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 34713039) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.