MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1970671670 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119075

Predicting Cognitive Function from Clinical Measures of Physical Function and Health Status in Older Adults

2015· article· en· W1970671670 on OpenAlexafffund
Niousha Bolandzadeh, Konrad P. Körding, Nicole Salowitz, Jennifer C. Davis, Liang Hsu, Alison Chan, Devika Sharma, Gunnar Blohm, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesVancouver Coastal HealthQueen's UniversityVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCAlzheimer's SocietyHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCognitionDementiaCognitive declineGerontologyRegression analysisLinear regressionMedicinePsychologyDiseaseStatisticsPsychiatryInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Current research suggests that the neuropathology of dementia-including brain changes leading to memory impairment and cognitive decline-is evident years before the onset of this disease. Older adults with cognitive decline have reduced functional independence and quality of life, and are at greater risk for developing dementia. Therefore, identifying biomarkers that can be easily assessed within the clinical setting and predict cognitive decline is important. Early recognition of cognitive decline could promote timely implementation of preventive strategies. METHODS: We included 89 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older in our study, and collected 32 measures of physical function, health status and cognitive function at baseline. We utilized an L1-L2 regularized regression model (elastic net) to identify which of the 32 baseline measures were strongly predictive of cognitive function after one year. We built three linear regression models: 1) based on baseline cognitive function, 2) based on variables consistently selected in every cross-validation loop, and 3) a full model based on all the 32 variables. Each of these models was carefully tested with nested cross-validation. RESULTS: Our model with the six variables consistently selected in every cross-validation loop had a mean squared prediction error of 7.47. This number was smaller than that of the full model (115.33) and the model with baseline cognitive function (7.98). Our model explained 47% of the variance in cognitive function after one year. DISCUSSION: We built a parsimonious model based on a selected set of six physical function and health status measures strongly predictive of cognitive function after one year. In addition to reducing the complexity of the model without changing the model significantly, our model with the top variables improved the mean prediction error and R-squared. These six physical function and health status measures can be easily implemented in a clinical setting.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→