Agentic Cognitive Profiling: Realigning Automated Alzheimer's Disease Detection with Clinical Construct Validity
Organizations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Abstract
Automated Alzheimer's Disease (AD) screening has predominantly followed the inductive paradigm of pattern recognition, which directly maps the input signal to the outcome label. This paradigm sacrifices construct validity of clinical protocol for statistical shortcuts. This paper proposes Agentic Cognitive Profiling (ACP), an agentic framework that realigns automated screening with clinical protocol logic across multiple cognitive domains. Rather than learning opaque mappings from transcripts to labels, the framework decomposes standardized assessments into atomic cognitive tasks and orchestrates specialized LLM agents to extract verifiable scoring primitives. Central to our design is decoupling semantic understanding from measurement by delegating all quantification to deterministic function calling, thereby mitigating hallucination and restoring construct validity. Unlike popular datasets that typically comprise around a hundred participants under a single task, we evaluate on a clinically-annotated corpus of 402 participants across eight structured cognitive tasks spanning multiple cognitive domains. The framework achieves 90.5% score match rate in task examination and 85.3% accuracy in AD prediction, surpassing popular baselines while generating interpretable cognitive profiles grounded in behavioral evidence. This work demonstrates that construct validity and predictive performance need not be traded off, charting a path toward AD screening systems that explain rather than merely predict.
Figures & tables
| Task | Scoring Primitives | Score |
| MoCA-SL (Assess language, attention, executive functions) | ||
| Picture Naming | Per-item correctness ( 3) | 3 |
| Digit Span | Forward/backward correctness | 2 |
| Serial 7 Subtraction | # correct subtractions | 3 |
| Sentence Repetition | Per-sentence correctness ( 2) | 2 |
| Animal Fluency | # valid animals | 1 |
| Full | w/o Verifier | w/o Func. Call | ||||
| Task | SMR | MAE | SMR | MAE | SMR | MAE |
| MoCA-SL | ||||||
| Picture Naming (/3) | 97.0% | 0.03 | 97.0% | 0.03 | 92.6% | 0.07 |
| Digit Span (/2) | 98.5% | 0.01 | 98.5% | 0.01 | 77.3% | 0.24 |
| Serial 7 Sub. (/3) | 82.4% | 0.19 | 70.6% | 0.32 | 63.2% | 0.63 |
| Sentence Rep. (/2) | 89.7% | 0.10 | 89.7% | 0.10 | 86.8% | 0.13 |
| System | Classifier | Accuracy | F1 | Precision | Recall |
| Baseline | |||||
| Handcrafted | MLP / SVM | 68.2 / 70.6 | 55.7 / 67.8 | 58.3 / 56.8 | 54.4 / 84.0 |
| BERT | MLP / SVM | 73.7 / 79.4 | 59.5 / 72.0 | 68.3 / 72.0 | 52.8 / 72.0 |
| RoBERTa | MLP / SVM | 70.4 / 75.0 | 53.9 / 66.7 | 63.1 / 65.4 | 47.2 / 68.0 |
| LLM-CoT | - | 70.6 | 66.7 | 57.1 | 80.0 |
| Proposed | |||||
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Task | Description | Cognitive Domain (DSM-5) | Scoring Primitives | Score |
| Alternating Trail Making | Draw a line to connect numbers and characters in alternating order | Exec. Function | Successful connection pattern | 1 |
| Copy Cube | Copy a 3-dimensional cube structure | Perceptual Motor | Correct 3D structure | 1 |
| Clock Drawing | Draw a clock face, numbers, and set time to 11:10 | Perceptual Motor | Contour (1), Numbers (1), Hands (1) | 3 |
| *Picture Naming | Name three depicted animals (e.g., Lion, Rhino, Camel) | Language | Per-item correctness ( 3) | 3 |
| *Digit Span | Repeat digits forward and backward | Complex Attention | Forward (1), Backward (1) | 2 |
| Vigilance (Tap) | Tap hand at each target digit (e.g., ’1’) in a sequence | Complex Attention | 1 error allowed | 1 |
| Trial / Task | Description | Cognitive Domain (DSM-5) | Scoring Primitives | Score |
| Acquisition & Learning (Form 1: Random Condition) | ||||
| Trial 1 | Listen to a list of 16 words (4 categories) presented orally, followed by immediate free recall. | Immediate Memory | # correctly recalled words | 16 |
| Trials 2 & 3 | Listen to the same list repeated (same order), followed by free recall each time. | Learning Rate | # correctly recalled words (per trial) | 16 |
| Delayed Recall (Retention) | ||||
| Trial 4 (10-min Delay) | Unannounced free recall of the 16 words after a 10-minute non-verbal interval. | Short-term Retention | # correctly recalled words | 16 |
| Trial 5 (30-min Delay) | Unannounced free recall of the 16 words after a 30-minute interval. | Long-term Retention | # correctly recalled words | 16 |
| ID | Feature Name | Description |
| L1 | # words | The number of words |
| L2 | % Stop words | # stop words / # words |
| L3 | % Filled pauses | # filler words / # words |
| L4 | % Lexical filler | # lexical filler / # words |
| L5 | % Backchannel | # backchannel words / # words |
| L6 | % Repetition | # repeated words / # words |
| ID | Feature Name | Description |
| HKLLT (Hong Kong List Learning Test) | ||
| C1 | hkllt4_zScore | Trial 4 z-score |
| C2 | hkllt5_zScore | Trial 5 z-score |
| C3 | n_hkllt4_recall | Trial 4 recall count |
| C4 | n_hkllt5_recall | Trial 5 recall count |
| C5 | hkllt4_n_clustering | Trial 4 semantic clustering count |
| Approach | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
| 1 | 0.818 | 0.813 | 0.786 | 0.796 |
| 2 | 0.824 | 0.814 | 0.802 | 0.802 |
| 3 | 0.818 | 0.813 | 0.786 | 0.796 |
| Age | Education | N | Median | IQR | Percentile | ||
| (years) | (years) | 16th | 7th | 2nd | |||
| 65–69 | 0–3 | 64 | 9.1 | 1.7 | 7.4 | 6.1 | 3.9 |
| 4–6 | 82 | 10.0 | 2.2 | 8.2 | 7.8 | 5.6 | |
| 7–9 | 74 | 10.4 | 2.2 | 9.1 | 8.2 | 6.9 | |
| 10–12 | 82 | 10.8 | 1.7 | 9.5 | 8.7 | 7.4 | |
| 12 | 67 | 11.7 | 1.3 | 10.8 | 10.0 | 9.1 | |
| Task | Metric | Value |
| MoCA-SL | ||
| Picture Naming | SMR (Exact) | 97.1% |
| SMR ( ) | 100.0% | |
| MAE (Score) | 0.029 | |
| RMSE (Score) | 0.171 | |
| Digit Span | SMR (Exact) | 98.5% |
Alzheimer's Disease Classification
Alzheimer’s disease classification uses clinical, behavioral, and brain-imaging data to distinguish disease stages and predict progression.
See all 92 papers