Outdoor life in dementia: How predictable are people with dementia in their mobility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction People with dementia (PWD) often become disoriented, which increases their risk of getting lost. This article explores the extent to which we can predict future whereabouts of PWD by learning from their past mobility patterns using Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices. Methods Seven older adults with dementia and eight healthy older adults completed 8 weeks of GPS data collection. We computed the probability that an appropriate algorithm can correctly predict the participant's future destinations using spatial and temporal patterns in each participant's GPS trajectories. Results Relying on both spatial and temporal patterns, our results suggest that a 4‐week record of mobility patterns displays 95% potential predictability across the dementia group, which is significantly higher than 92% potential predictability among the controls, t(13) = –3.39, P < .01, d = –1.75. That is, we can hope to be able to predict destinations of PWD about 95% of the time and destinations of controls about 92% of the time. Discussions Our findings on predictability of mobility patterns among PWD offer new perspectives on predictive mobility models that can be used to locate missing persons with dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".