Fig 1.
MCDT procedures for identifying cognitive impairment: (A) the GAIT task (walking 10 m in a straight line) performed under four different cognitive loads; (B) the FTAP task (15 s of index-finger tapping) performed under four different cognitive loads; (C) the TTHP task (15 s of toe tapping) performed under four different cognitive loads.
Fig 2.
Overview of the development of pooled indices.
The criteria we followed throughout the feature selection process are summarised in diamond-shaped blocks. Criterion 1): Is the number of features >6? Criterion 2): Is there a single feature with the highest number of rho that are >0.4? Criterion 3): Among the features with the highest number of rho that are >0.4, is there a feature with a weaker ability to distinguish among CNA, SCI, and MCI subjects (Cohen’s d)? Criterion 4) Among the features screened so far, identify the feature that has less clinical relevance.
Table 1.
For each cognition group, the median and IQR values are presented.
Table 2.
Cross-validated results of logistic regression models for two-class (CNA vs MCI) and three-class (CNA vs SCI vs MCI) identification.
Fig 3.
Recall, precision, and F1-score for each experimental group (CNA, SCI, and MCI) for the following models: (A) PI(FTAP), age, and FAB; (B) PI(TTHP), age, and FAB; (C) PI(GAIT), age, and FAB; (D) PI(TAPPING), age, and FAB; (E) PI(TOTAL), age, and FAB.