Back

AI-Enhanced Animal Naming as a Digital Biomarker for Early Cognitive Screening

Mekulu, K.

2025-11-13 health informatics
10.1101/2025.11.10.25339942 medRxiv
Show abstract

The animal naming task is a widely used, low-burden measure of semantic fluency for cognitive screening, but conventional scoring based on total correct items overlooks linguistic and temporal features relevant to early mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We developed a multi-dimensional, AI-enhanced scoring framework that quantifies base count and age-adjusted percentiles, efficiency (unique/repetition balance and diversity), semantic flexibility (category switching and coverage), and optional speech-quality features when transcripts are derived from audio. In a proof-of-concept simulation, we generated text responses emulating 60-second performances from cognitively healthy and impaired profiles. A supervised classifier integrated the feature families into a composite score with confidence intervals, benchmarked against traditional scoring via ROC, precision-recall, and confusion matrices. The AI-enhanced method substantially outperformed traditional scoring (AUC = 0.94 vs. 0.72), with higher sensitivity (89% vs. 52%) and specificity (92% vs. 78%), reducing false negatives by 77%. Gains were consistent across evaluation metrics and robust to simulated age variation. These results demonstrate that multi-dimensional analysis of animal naming transforms a familiar task into a sensitive, interpretable digital biomarker for early MCI detection. Although based on simulated transcripts, the framework is designed for direct integration with automatic speech recognition and complements our AI-enhanced memory-list assessment. Prospective validation will establish clinical utility across care settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.