Computer-based tools for assessing micro-longitudinal patterns of cognitive function in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of cognitive change over micro-longitudinal timescales (i.e., ranging from hours to days) are associated with a wide range of age-related health and functional outcomes. However, practical issues of conducting high-frequency assessments make investigations of micro-longitudinal cognition costly and burdensome to run. One way of addressing this is to develop cognitive assessments that can be performed by older adults, in their own homes, without a researcher being present. Here, we address the question of whether reliable and valid cognitive data can be collected over micro-longitudinal timescales using unsupervised cognitive tests.In study 1, 48 older adults completed two touchscreen cognitive tests, on three occasions, in controlled conditions, alongside a battery of standard tests of cognitive functions. In study 2, 40 older adults completed the same two computerized tasks on multiple occasions, over three separate week-long periods, in their own homes, without a researcher present. Here, the tasks were incorporated into a wider touchscreen system (Novel Assessment of Nutrition and Ageing (NANA)) developed to assess multiple domains of health and behavior. Standard tests of cognitive function were also administered prior to participants using the NANA system.Performance on the two "NANA" cognitive tasks showed convergent validity with, and similar levels of reliability to, the standard cognitive battery in both studies. Completion and accuracy rates were also very high. These results show that reliable and valid cognitive data can be collected from older adults using unsupervised computerized tests, thus affording new opportunities for the investigation of cognitive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".