Comparison of RCF Scoring System to Clinical Decision for the Rey Complex Figure Using Machine-Learning Algorithm.

Dementia and neurocognitive disorders Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-31 DOI:10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.70
Chanda Simfukwe, Seong Soo An, Young Chul Youn
{"title":"Comparison of RCF Scoring System to Clinical Decision for the Rey Complex Figure Using Machine-Learning Algorithm.","authors":"Chanda Simfukwe, Seong Soo An, Young Chul Youn","doi":"10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":72779,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and neurocognitive disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/dc/dnd-20-70.PMC8585537.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and neurocognitive disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.70","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用机器学习算法比较雷伊复杂图形的 RCF 评分系统与临床决策。
背景和目的:解读雷伊复杂图形(RCF)需要标准的 RCF 评分系统和临床医生的临床判断。在诊断轻度认知障碍(MCI)或痴呆症患者时,临床医生通过临床判断对 RCF 的解释可能不如 RCF 评分系统准确。为此,研究人员使用机器学习算法证明,在从正常人预测MCI或轻度痴呆症患者时,使用临床决策对RCF进行评分的准确性不及RCF评分系统:RCF数据集由2232名接受过正规神经心理学评估的受试者组成。RCF 数据集分为两个数据集。第一个数据集比较正常与异常,第二个数据集比较正常与 MCI 与轻度痴呆。使用卷积神经网络对模型进行机器学习训练。使用接收者操作特征曲线来比较模型的灵敏度、特异性和曲线下面积(AUC):第一个数据集(正常与异常)和第二个数据集(正常与 MCI 与轻度痴呆)的训练模型预测认知状态的准确率分别为 96%和 88%。该模型检测异常的灵敏度为 85%,第一个数据集的 AUC 为 0.847。该模型检测 MCI 或轻度痴呆的灵敏度为 78%,第二个数据集的 AUC 为 0.778:根据这项研究,RCF 评分系统有可能提供比临床判定更准确的标准来区分患者的认知障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of Item Characteristics and Test Information Between the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE. Assessing the Impact of Defacing Algorithms on Brain Volumetry Accuracy in MRI Analyses. Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards. Shunt-Responsive Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Patient With Parkinson's Disease-Compatible Findings on Dopamine Transporter Scans. Speech Emotion Recognition in People at High Risk of Dementia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1