INTRODUCTION: Reducing the amount of testing required to accurately detect cognitive impairment is clinically relevant. The aim of this research was to determine the fewest number of clinical measures required to accurately classify participants as healthy older adult, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia using a suite of classification techniques. METHOD: Two variable selection machine learning models (i.e., naive Bayes, decision tree), a logistic regression, and two participant datasets (i.e., clinical diagnosis; Clinical Dementia Rating, CDR) were explored. Participants classified using clinical diagnosis criteria included 52 individuals with dementia, 97 with MCI, and 161 cognitively healthy older adults. Participants classified using CDR included 154 individuals with CDR = 0, 93 individuals with CDR = 0.5, and 25 individuals with CDR = 1.0+. A total of 27 demographic, psychological, and neuropsychological variables were available for variable selection. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between naive Bayes, decision tree, and logistic regression models for classification of both clinical diagnosis and CDR datasets. Participant classification (70.0-99.1%), geometric mean (60.9-98.1%), sensitivity (44.2-100%), and specificity (52.7-100%) were generally satisfactory. Unsurprisingly, the MCI/CDR = 0.5 participant group was the most challenging to classify. Through variable selection only 2-9 variables were required for classification and varied between datasets in a clinically meaningful way. CONCLUSIONS: The current study results reveal that machine learning techniques can accurately classify cognitive impairment and reduce the number of measures required for diagnosis.
INTRODUCTION: Reducing the amount of testing required to accurately detect cognitive impairment is clinically relevant. The aim of this research was to determine the fewest number of clinical measures required to accurately classify participants as healthy older adult, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia using a suite of classification techniques. METHOD: Two variable selection machine learning models (i.e., naive Bayes, decision tree), a logistic regression, and two participant datasets (i.e., clinical diagnosis; Clinical Dementia Rating, CDR) were explored. Participants classified using clinical diagnosis criteria included 52 individuals with dementia, 97 with MCI, and 161 cognitively healthy older adults. Participants classified using CDR included 154 individuals with CDR = 0, 93 individuals with CDR = 0.5, and 25 individuals with CDR = 1.0+. A total of 27 demographic, psychological, and neuropsychological variables were available for variable selection. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between naive Bayes, decision tree, and logistic regression models for classification of both clinical diagnosis and CDR datasets. Participant classification (70.0-99.1%), geometric mean (60.9-98.1%), sensitivity (44.2-100%), and specificity (52.7-100%) were generally satisfactory. Unsurprisingly, the MCI/CDR = 0.5 participant group was the most challenging to classify. Through variable selection only 2-9 variables were required for classification and varied between datasets in a clinically meaningful way. CONCLUSIONS: The current study results reveal that machine learning techniques can accurately classify cognitive impairment and reduce the number of measures required for diagnosis.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Yu Wang; Igor V Tetko; Mark A Hall; Eibe Frank; Axel Facius; Klaus F X Mayer; Hans W Mewes Journal: Comput Biol Chem Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Michael Grundman; Ronald C Petersen; Steven H Ferris; Ronald G Thomas; Paul S Aisen; David A Bennett; Norman L Foster; Clifford R Jack; Douglas R Galasko; Rachelle Doody; Jeffrey Kaye; Mary Sano; Richard Mohs; Serge Gauthier; Hyun T Kim; Shelia Jin; Arlan N Schultz; Kimberly Schafer; Ruth Mulnard; Christopher H van Dyck; Jacobo Mintzer; Edward Y Zamrini; Deborah Cahn-Weiner; Leon J Thal Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2004-01
Authors: Emmanuel A Jammeh; Camille B Carroll; Stephen W Pearson; Javier Escudero; Athanasios Anastasiou; Peng Zhao; Todd Chenore; John Zajicek; Emmanuel Ifeachor Journal: BJGP Open Date: 2018-06-13
Authors: Seyul Kwak; Dae Jong Oh; Yeong-Ju Jeon; Da Young Oh; Su Mi Park; Hairin Kim; Jun-Young Lee Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Min Ju Kang; Sang Yun Kim; Duk L Na; Byeong C Kim; Dong Won Yang; Eun-Joo Kim; Hae Ri Na; Hyun Jeong Han; Jae-Hong Lee; Jong Hun Kim; Kee Hyung Park; Kyung Won Park; Seol-Heui Han; Seong Yoon Kim; Soo Jin Yoon; Bora Yoon; Sang Won Seo; So Young Moon; YoungSoon Yang; Yong S Shim; Min Jae Baek; Jee Hyang Jeong; Seong Hye Choi; Young Chul Youn Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.796