Effectiveness of digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment among community-dwelling elderly in Northern China: A large cohort study.

IF 4.3 Q2 BUSINESS
Xiaonan Zhang, Feifei Zhang, Sijia Hou, Chenxi Hao, Xiangmin Fan, Yarong Zhao, Wenjing Bao, Junpin An, Shuning Du, Guowen Min, Qiuyan Wang, Wencheng Zhu, Yang Li, Hui Zhang
{"title":"Effectiveness of digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment among community-dwelling elderly in Northern China: A large cohort study.","authors":"Xiaonan Zhang, Feifei Zhang, Sijia Hou, Chenxi Hao, Xiangmin Fan, Yarong Zhao, Wenjing Bao, Junpin An, Shuning Du, Guowen Min, Qiuyan Wang, Wencheng Zhu, Yang Li, Hui Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study assessed the effectiveness of three digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in a large cohort of community-dwelling elderly individuals and investigated the relationship between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This community-based cohort study included 1,083 participants aged 65 years or older, with 337 diagnosed with CI and 746 classified as normal controls (NC). We utilized two screening approaches: traditional methods (AD8, MMSE scale, and APOE genotyping) and digital tools (drawing, gait, and eye tracking). LightGBM-based machine learning models were developed for each digital screening tool and their combination, and their performance was evaluated. The correlation between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels was analyzed as well.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 21 drawing, 71 gait, and 35 eye-tracking parameters showed significant differences between the two groups (all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) values for the drawing, gait, and eye-tracking models in distinguishing CI from NC were 0.860, 0.848, and 0.895, respectively. The combination of eye-tracking and drawing achieved the highest classification effectiveness, with an AUC of 0.958, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity all exceeded 85%. The fusion model achieved an AUC of 0.928 in distinguishing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from NC. Additionally, several digital features (including two drawing, ten gait, and one eye-tracking parameters) were significantly correlated with plasma p-tau217 levels (all |r| > 0.3, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Digital screening tools offer objective, accurate, and efficient alternatives for detecting CI in community settings, with the fusion of drawing and eye-tracking providing the best performance (AUC = 0.958).</p>","PeriodicalId":22711,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"100080"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study assessed the effectiveness of three digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in a large cohort of community-dwelling elderly individuals and investigated the relationship between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels.

Methods: This community-based cohort study included 1,083 participants aged 65 years or older, with 337 diagnosed with CI and 746 classified as normal controls (NC). We utilized two screening approaches: traditional methods (AD8, MMSE scale, and APOE genotyping) and digital tools (drawing, gait, and eye tracking). LightGBM-based machine learning models were developed for each digital screening tool and their combination, and their performance was evaluated. The correlation between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels was analyzed as well.

Results: A total of 21 drawing, 71 gait, and 35 eye-tracking parameters showed significant differences between the two groups (all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) values for the drawing, gait, and eye-tracking models in distinguishing CI from NC were 0.860, 0.848, and 0.895, respectively. The combination of eye-tracking and drawing achieved the highest classification effectiveness, with an AUC of 0.958, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity all exceeded 85%. The fusion model achieved an AUC of 0.928 in distinguishing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from NC. Additionally, several digital features (including two drawing, ten gait, and one eye-tracking parameters) were significantly correlated with plasma p-tau217 levels (all |r| > 0.3, p < 0.001).

Discussion: Digital screening tools offer objective, accurate, and efficient alternatives for detecting CI in community settings, with the fusion of drawing and eye-tracking providing the best performance (AUC = 0.958).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The JPAD Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’Disease will publish reviews, original research articles and short reports to improve our knowledge in the field of Alzheimer prevention including: neurosciences, biomarkers, imaging, epidemiology, public health, physical cognitive exercise, nutrition, risk and protective factors, drug development, trials design, and heath economic outcomes.JPAD will publish also the meeting abstracts from Clinical Trial on Alzheimer Disease (CTAD) and will be distributed both in paper and online version worldwide.We hope that JPAD with your contribution will play a role in the development of Alzheimer prevention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信