MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202433219 · doi:10.3233/faia210077

Toward Personalizing Alzheimer’s Disease Therapy Using an Intelligent Cognitive Control System

2021· book-chapter· en· W3202433219 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamdi Ben Abdessalem, Claude Frasson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCognitionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyLimbic systemIntervention (counseling)PsychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective cognitive decline is an early state of Alzheimer’s Disease which affects almost 10 million people every year. It results from negative emotions such as frustration which are more present than healthy adults. For this reason, our work focuses on relaxing subjective cognitive decline patients using virtual reality environments to improve their memory performance. We proposed in our previous work a neurofeedback approach which adapts the virtual environment to each patient according to their emotions using a Neural Agent. We found that the Neural Agent can adapt the environment to each participant but have limitations. This work is a continuation of our approach in which we propose a Limbic Agent able to monitor the interactions between the Neural Agent and patients’ emotional reactions, learn from these interactions, and modify the Neural Agent in order to enhance the adaptation to each patient with an Intelligent Cognitive Control System. Our goal is to create a system able to support the Limbic System which is the main area in charge of controlling emotions and creating memory in the human brain. We used data collected form our previous work to train the Limbic Agent and results showed that the agent is capable of modifying the weight of existing rules, generating new intervention rules, and predicting if they will work or not.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicPsychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207