CONSENSUS IN MEASURES OF GAIT AND COGNITION: FROM THE CANADIAN CONSORTIUM IN NEURODEGENERATION AND AGING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive epidemiological evidence supports interrelationships between mobility and cognition in aging. However, until recently, clinicians and researchers have evaluated and treated cognitive and mobility dysfunction in older individuals as separate problems. This approach has led to gaps in our understanding of the cognitive-motor interactions and of the potential underlying mechanisms that can affect pathways to disability in aging. Thinking and moving share behavioral and etiological factors that can drive new insights into prevention and treatment. Mechanistically, brain networks, which control movement, overlap with networks involved in cognitive performance. Therefore, there is a need of a common framework among clinician and researchers to i) better characterize the relationship between cognitive and motor changes with aging, comorbidities and neurodegeneration, ii) standardize clinical and research methodologies to measures and assess mobility and cognition in older adults iii) agree upon a “core of set” of measures to assess cognitive-mobility interaction. The Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration and Aging is a Pan-Canadian Initiative funded by Canadian Institute of Health and Research (CIHR), which aims to better understand neurodegenerative process in aging. As part of this initiative, the “Gait and Cognition team” has established by consensus a set of common measurements to assess motor-cognitive interactions. Results of the Delphi process carried on in during 2015 and the consensus meeting which involved 15 researchers from eight lead centers in Canada will be presented with the “core-set” and “minimum set” of measures selected. Having common and standardized measures will positively contribute to the prevention, management, and rehabilitation of the cognitive and mobility disability in older adults.
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 | 0.187 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".