Using the NANA toolkit at home to predict older adults’ future depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is currently underdiagnosed among older adults. As part of the Novel Assessment of Nutrition and Aging (NANA) validation study, 40 older adults self-reported their mood using a touchscreen computer over three, one-week periods. Here, we demonstrate the potential of these data to predict future depression status. METHODS: We analysed data from the NANA validation study using a machine learning approach. We applied the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator with a logistic model to averages of six measures of mood, with depression status according to the Geriatric Depression Scale 10 weeks later as the outcome variable. We tested multiple values of the selection parameter in order to produce a model with low deviance. We used a cross-validation framework to avoid overspecialisation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to determine the quality of the fitted model. RESULTS: The model we report contained coefficients for two variables: sadness and tiredness, as well as a constant. The cross-validated area under the ROC curve for this model was 0.88 (CI: 0.69-0.97). LIMITATIONS: While results are based on a small sample, the methodology for the selection of variables appears suitable for the problem at hand, suggesting promise for a wider study and ultimate deployment with older adults at increased risk of depression. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified self-reported scales of sadness and tiredness as sensitive measures which have the potential to predict future depression status in older adults, partially addressing the problem of underdiagnosis.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".