↓ Skip to main content

Differentiating Patients at the Memory Clinic With Simple Reaction Time Variables: A Predictive Modeling Approach Using Support Vector Machines and Bayesian Optimization

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differentiating Patients at the Memory Clinic With Simple Reaction Time Variables: A Predictive Modeling Approach Using Support Vector Machines and Bayesian Optimization
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00144
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Wallert, Eric Westman, Johnny Ulinder, Mathilde Annerstedt, Beata Terzis, Urban Ekman

Abstract

Background: Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and dementia differ in important ways yet share a future of increased prevalence. Separating these conditions from each other, and from Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI), is important for clinical prognoses and treatment, socio-legal interventions, and family adjustments. With costly clinical investigations and an aging population comes a need for more cost-efficient differential diagnostics. Methods: Using supervised machine learning, we investigated nine variables extracted from simple reaction time (SRT) data with respect to their single and conjoined ability to discriminate both MCI/dementia, and SCI/MCI/dementia, compared to-and together with-established psychometric tests. One-hundred-twenty elderly patients (age range = 65-95 years) were recruited when referred to full neuropsychological assessment at a specialized memory clinic in urban Sweden. A freely available SRT task served as index test and was administered and scored objectively by a computer before diagnosis of SCI (n = 17), MCI (n = 53), or dementia (n = 50). As reference standard, diagnosis was decided through the multidisciplinary memory clinic investigation. Bonferroni-Holm corrected P-values for constructed models against the null model are provided. Results: Algorithmic feature selection for the two final multivariable models was performed through recursive feature elimination with 3 × 10-fold cross-validation resampling. For both models, this procedure selected seven predictors of which five were SRT variables. When used as input for a soft-margin, radial-basis support vector machine model tuned via Bayesian optimization, the leave-one-out cross-validated accuracy of the final model for MCI/dementia classification was good (Accuracy = 0.806 [0.716, INS [0].877], P < 0.001) and the final model for SCI/MCI/dementia classification held some merit (Accuracy = 0.650 [0.558, 0.735], P < 0.001). These two models are implemented in a freely available application for research and educatory use. Conclusions: Simple reaction time variables hold some potential in conjunction with established psychometric tests for differentiating MCI/dementia, and SCI/MCI/dementia in these difficult-to-differentiate memory clinic patients. While external validation is needed, their implementation within diagnostic support systems is promising.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Unspecified 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 25 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 26%
Unspecified 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 28 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,971,835
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,854
of 4,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,809
of 330,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#96
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.