Comparison of RCF Scoring System to Clinical Decision for the Rey Complex Figure Using Machine-Learning Algorithm.
Dementia
Machine Learning
Mild Cognitive Impairment
Neuropsychological Test
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
Journal
Dementia and neurocognitive disorders
ISSN: 2384-0757
Titre abrégé: Dement Neurocogn Disord
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101600298
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
29
06
2021
revised:
07
10
2021
accepted:
20
10
2021
entrez:
19
11
2021
pubmed:
20
11
2021
medline:
20
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Interpreting the Rey complex figure (RCF) requires a standard RCF scoring system and clinical decision by clinicians. The interpretation of RCF using clinical decision by clinicians might not be accurate in the diagnosing of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia patients in comparison with the RCF scoring system. For this reason, a machine-learning algorithm was used to demonstrate that scoring RCF using clinical decision is not as accurate as of the RCF scoring system in predicting MCI or mild dementia patients from normal subjects. The RCF dataset consisted of 2,232 subjects with formal neuropsychological assessments. The RCF dataset was classified into 2 datasets. The first dataset was to compare normal vs. abnormal and the second dataset was to compare normal vs. MCI vs. mild dementia. Models were trained using a convolutional neural network for machine learning. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of models. The trained model's accuracy for predicting cognitive states was 96% with the first dataset (normal vs. abnormal) and 88% with the second dataset (normal vs. MCI vs. mild dementia). The model had a sensitivity of 85% for detecting abnormal with an AUC of 0.847 with the first dataset. It had a sensitivity of 78% for detecting MCI or mild dementia with an AUC of 0.778 with the second dataset. Based on this study, the RCF scoring system has the potential to present more accurate criteria than the clinical decision for distinguishing cognitive impairment among patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Interpreting the Rey complex figure (RCF) requires a standard RCF scoring system and clinical decision by clinicians. The interpretation of RCF using clinical decision by clinicians might not be accurate in the diagnosing of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia patients in comparison with the RCF scoring system. For this reason, a machine-learning algorithm was used to demonstrate that scoring RCF using clinical decision is not as accurate as of the RCF scoring system in predicting MCI or mild dementia patients from normal subjects.
METHODS
METHODS
The RCF dataset consisted of 2,232 subjects with formal neuropsychological assessments. The RCF dataset was classified into 2 datasets. The first dataset was to compare normal vs. abnormal and the second dataset was to compare normal vs. MCI vs. mild dementia. Models were trained using a convolutional neural network for machine learning. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The trained model's accuracy for predicting cognitive states was 96% with the first dataset (normal vs. abnormal) and 88% with the second dataset (normal vs. MCI vs. mild dementia). The model had a sensitivity of 85% for detecting abnormal with an AUC of 0.847 with the first dataset. It had a sensitivity of 78% for detecting MCI or mild dementia with an AUC of 0.778 with the second dataset.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, the RCF scoring system has the potential to present more accurate criteria than the clinical decision for distinguishing cognitive impairment among patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34795770
doi: 10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.70
pmc: PMC8585537
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
70-79Informations de copyright
© 2021 Korean Dementia Association.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 12;22(8):e18136
pubmed: 32491988
Lancet Oncol. 2019 May;20(5):e262-e273
pubmed: 31044724
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018 Nov 01;14:2939-2945
pubmed: 30464478
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):231
pubmed: 31752864
Can Pharm J (Ott). 2017 Feb 07;150(2):118-129
pubmed: 28405256
Arch Neurol. 2004 Jan;61(1):59-66
pubmed: 14732621
Front Neurol. 2021 Aug 31;12:680474
pubmed: 34531812
Neurology. 2011 Feb 15;76(7):652-9
pubmed: 21321338
J Intern Med. 2014 Mar;275(3):214-28
pubmed: 24605806
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(2):892-9
pubmed: 17406322
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):139-46
pubmed: 16594936
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;18(4):374-84
pubmed: 21496140
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012 Mar;14(1):91-9
pubmed: 22577308
Neurology. 1993 Nov;43(11):2412-4
pubmed: 8232972