Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validation of the Remote Automated ki:e Speech Biomarker for Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Verification and Validation following DiME V3 Framework
Tröger J, Baykara E, Zhao J, Ter Huurne D, Possemis N, Mallick E, Schäfer S, Schwed L et al.. Digital biomarkers, 2022-09-30
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Introduction Progressive cognitive decline is the cardinal behavioral symptom in most dementia-causing diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. While most well-established measures for cognition might not fit tomorrow's decentralized remote clinical trials, digital cognitive assessments will gain importance. We present the evaluation of a novel digital speech biomarker for cognition (SB-C) following the Digital Medicine Society's V3 framework: verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation. Methods Evaluation was done in two independent clinical samples: the Dutch DeepSpA ( N = 69 subjective cognitive impairment [SCI], N = 52 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and N = 13 dementia) and the Scottish SPeAk datasets ( N = 25, healthy controls). For validation, two anchor scores were used: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale. Results Verification : The SB-C could be reliably extracted for both languages using an automatic speech processing pipeline. Analytical Validation : In both languages, the SB-C was strongly correlated with MMSE scores. Clinical Validation: The SB-C significantly differed between clinical groups (including MCI and dementia), was strongly correlated with the CDR, and could track the clinically meaningful decline. Conclusion Our results suggest that the ki:e SB-C is an objective, scalable, and reliable indicator of cognitive decline, fit for purpose as a remote assessment in clinical early dementia trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tröger, J., Baykara, E., Zhao, J., Ter Huurne, D., Possemis, N., Mallick, E., et al. (2022). Validation of the Remote Automated ki:e Speech Biomarker for Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Verification and Validation following DiME V3 Framework. Digital biomarkers. https://doi.org/10.1159/000526471
Vancouver
Tröger J, Baykara E, Zhao J, Ter Huurne D, Possemis N, Mallick E, et al. Validation of the Remote Automated ki:e Speech Biomarker for Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Verification and Validation following DiME V3 Framework. Digital biomarkers. 2022. doi:10.1159/000526471. PMID: 36466952.
BibTeX
@article{troger2022-36466952,
author = {Tröger, J. and Baykara, E. and Zhao, J. and Ter Huurne, D. and Possemis, N. and Mallick, E. and Schäfer, S. and Schwed, L. and others},
title = {{Validation of the Remote Automated ki:e Speech Biomarker for Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Verification and Validation following DiME V3 Framework}},
journal = {Digital biomarkers},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1159/000526471},
pmid = {36466952},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000526471}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Verification : The SB-C could be reliably extracted for both languages using an automatic speech processing pipeline.
- Clinical Validation: The SB-C significantly differed between clinical groups (including MCI and dementia), was strongly correlated with the CDR, and could track the clinically meaningful decline.
- Conclusion Our results suggest that the ki:e SB-C is an objective, scalable, and reliable indicator of cognitive decline, fit for purpose as a remote assessment in clinical early dementia trials.
Study details
- Participants69
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Digital biomarkers) |
| 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 | 69 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 36466952) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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.