Advanced analytical methodologies for measuring healthy ageing and its determinants, using factor analysis and machine learning techniques: the ATHLOS project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A most challenging task for scientists that are involved in the study of ageing is the development of a measure to quantify health status across populations and over time. In the present study, a Bayesian multilevel Item Response Theory approach is used to create a health score that can be compared across different waves in a longitudinal study, using anchor items and items that vary across waves. The same approach can be applied to compare health scores across different longitudinal studies, using items that vary across studies. Data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) are employed. Mixed-effects multilevel regression and Machine Learning methods were used to identify relationships between socio-demographics and the health score created. The metric of health was created for 17,886 subjects (54.6% of women) participating in at least one of the first six ELSA waves and correlated well with already known conditions that affect health. Future efforts will implement this approach in a harmonised data set comprising several longitudinal studies of ageing. This will enable valid comparisons between clinical and community dwelling populations and help to generate norms that could be useful in day-to-day clinical practice.
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 | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".