Abstract
Objective Despite the potential of machine learning techniques to improve dementia diagnostic processes, research outcomes are often not readily translated to or adopted in clinical practice. Importantly, the time taken to administer diagnostic assessment has yet to be taken into account in feature-selection based optimisation for dementia diagnosis. We address these issues by considering the impact of assessment time as a practical constraint for feature selection of cognitive and functional assessments in Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.
Methods We use three different feature selection algorithms to select informative subsets of dementia assessment items from a large open-source dementia dataset. We use cost-sensitive feature selection to optimise our feature selection results for assessment time as well as diagnostic accuracy. To encourage clinical adoption and further evaluation of our proposed accuracy-vs-cost optimisation algorithms, we also implement a sandbox-like toolbox with graphical user interface to evaluate user-chosen subsets of assessment items.
Results We find that there are subsets of accuracy-cost optimised assessment items that can perform better in terms of diagnostic accuracy and/or total assessment time than most other standard assessments.
Discussion Overall, our analysis and accompanying sandbox tool can facilitate clinical users and other stakeholders to apply their own domain knowledge to analyse and decide which dementia diagnostic assessment items are useful, and aid the redesigning of dementia diagnostic assessments. Clinical Impact (Clinical Research): By optimising diagnostic accuracy and assessment time, we redesign predictive and efficient dementia diagnostic assessments and develop a sandbox interface to facilitate evaluation and testing by clinicians and non-specialists.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the European Union's INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) (Centre for Personalised Medicine, IVA 5036)), and additional support by Alzheimer's Research UK (ARUK) NI Pump Priming (XD, ST, PLM, KW-L) and Ulster University Research Challenge Fund (XD, ST, PLM, KW-L). The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
See Acknowledgment for funding and support.
Data Availability
The codes, including the RShiny code for the GUI, are available at: https://github.com/mac-n/Rshiny-app.
