MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296625668 · doi:10.1109/embc.2015.7319557

Estimating in-home walking speed distributions for unobtrusive detection of mild cognitive impairment in older adults

2015· article· en· W2296625668 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Akl, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDynamic time warpingCognitive impairmentCognitionRecallPreferred walking speedPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceAudiologyMedicinePsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timely recognition of cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's disease is of great significance. Many smart systems, developed to continuously monitor older adults' health and cognition, use a number of predefined measures associated with the older adults' activity in their homes. However, this approach has been demonstrated to focus on idiosyncratic nuances of the individual subjects, and thus could potentially not perform as well when tested on new subjects. In this paper, we address this problem by building proper statistical models of older adults' in-home walking speed. Using the data pertaining to 15 older adults monitored for an average period of 3 years, we used linear regression with a Gaussian likelihood to model the subjects' in-home walking speed, and we used dynamic time warping to demonstrate significant difference between the walking speed distributions of the subjects when cognitively intact and when having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Using a simple thresholding approach of the dynamic time warping costs, we were able to detect MCI in older adults with areas under the ROC curve and the precision-recall curve of 0.906 and 0.790, respectively, using a time frame of 12 weeks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207