Learning From Clinical Consensus Diagnosis in India to Facilitate Automatic Classification of Dementia: Machine Learning Study

BACKGROUND: The Harmonized Diagnostic Assessment of Dementia for the Longitudinal Aging Study in India (LASI-DAD) is the first and only nationally representative study on late-life cognition and dementia in India (n=4096). LASI-DAD obtained clinical consensus diagnosis of dementia for a subsample of 2528 respondents. OBJECTIVE: This study develops a machine learning model that uses data from the clinical consensus diagnosis in LASI-DAD to support the classification of dementia status. METHODS: Clinicians were presented with the extensive data collected from LASI-DAD, including sociodemographic information and health history of respondents, results from the screening tests of cognitive status, and information obtained from informant interviews. Based on the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and using an online platform, clinicians individually evaluated each case and then reached a consensus diagnosis. A 2-step procedure was implemented to train several candidate machine learning models, which were evaluated using a separate test set for predictive accuracy measurement, including the area under receiver operating curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, and kappa statistic. The ultimate model was selected based on overall agreement as measured by kappa. We further examined the overall accuracy and agreement with the final consensus diagnoses between the selected machine learning model and individual clinicians who participated in the clinical consensus diagnostic process. Finally, we applied the selected model to a subgroup of LASI-DAD participants for whom the clinical consensus diagnosis was not obtained to predict their dementia status. RESULTS: Among the 2528 individuals who received clinical consensus diagnosis, 192 (6.7% after adjusting for sampling weight) were diagnosed with dementia. All candidate machine learning models achieved outstanding discriminative ability, as indicated by AUROC >.90, and had similar accuracy and specificity (both around 0.95). The support vector machine model outperformed other models with the highest sensitivity (0.81), F1 score (0.72), and kappa (.70, indicating substantial agreement) and the second highest precision (0.65). As a result, the support vector machine was selected as the ultimate model. Further examination revealed that overall accuracy and agreement were similar between the selected model and individual clinicians. Application of the prediction model on 1568 individuals without clinical consensus diagnosis classified 127 individuals as living with dementia. After applying sampling weight, we can estimate the prevalence of dementia in the population as 7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The selected machine learning model has outstanding discriminative ability and substantial agreement with a clinical consensus diagnosis of dementia. The model can serve as a computer model of the clinical knowledge and experience encoded in the clinical consensus diagnostic process and has many potential applications, including predicting missed dementia diagnoses and serving as a clinical decision support tool or virtual rater to assist diagnosis of dementia.