Cognition and motor function: The gait and cognition pooled index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for outcome measures with improved responsiveness to changes in pre-dementia populations. Both cognitive and motor function play important roles in neurodegeneration; motor function decline is detectable at early stages of cognitive decline. This proof of principle study used a Pooled Index approach to evaluate improved responsiveness of the predominant outcome measure (ADAS-Cog: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale) when assessment of motor function is added. METHODS: Candidate Pooled Index variables were selected based on theoretical importance and pairwise correlation coefficients. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests assessed baseline discrimination. Standardized response means assessed responsiveness to longitudinal change. RESULTS: Final selected variables for the Pooled Index include gait velocity, dual-task cost of gait velocity, and an ADAS-Cog-Proxy (statistical approximation of the ADAS-Cog using similar cognitive tests). The Pooled Index and ADAS-Cog-Proxy scores had similar ability to discriminate between pre-dementia syndromes. The Pooled Index demonstrated trends of similar or greater responsiveness to longitudinal decline than ADAS-Cog-Proxy scores. CONCLUSION: Adding motor function assessments to the ADAS-Cog may improve responsiveness in pre-dementia populations.
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 | 0.025 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".