Comparison of Gait Speed Reserve, Usual Gait Speed, and Maximum Gait Speed of Adults Aged 50+ in Ireland Using Explainable Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gait speed is a measure of general fitness. Changing from usual (UGS) to maximum (MGS) gait speed requires a general effort across many body systems. The difference, MGS – UGS, is defined as gait speed reserve (GSR). In the present study, using 3925 participants aged 50+ from Wave 3 of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), we used a gradient boosted trees-based stepwise feature selection pipeline for the discovery of clinically relevant predictors of GSR, UGS, and MGS using a shortlist of 88 features across 5 categories (socio-demographics/anthropometrics/medical history; cardiovascular system; physical strength; sensory; and cognitive/psychological). The TreeSHAP explainable machine learning package was used to analyse the input-output relationships of the three models. The mean from 5-fold cross validation on training data and the score on test data for the models are: 0.38 (0.04) and 0.41 for UGS; 0.45 (0.04) and 0.46 for MGS; and 0.19 (0.02) and 0.21 for GSR. Features selected for the UGS model were: age, chair stands time, body mass index, grip strength, number of medications, resting state pulse interval, mean motor reaction time in the choice reaction time test, height, depression score, sit-to-stand difference in diastolic blood pressure, and left visual acuity. The features selected for the MGS model were: age, grip strength, repeated chair stands time, body mass index, education, mean motor reaction time in the choice reaction time test, number of medications, height, the standard deviation of the mean reaction time in the sustained attention to response task, mean heart rate at resting state, fear of falling, MOCA errors, orthostatic intolerance during active stand, smoking status, total heart beat power during paced breathing, the root mean square of successive differences between heartbeats during paced breathing, and visual acuity. Finally, the features chosen for the GSR model were: mean motor reaction time in the choice reaction time test, grip strength, education, chair stands time, MOCA errors, accuracy proportion in the sound induced flash illusion (two beeps and one flash with stimulus-onset asynchrony of +150 ms), fear of falling, height, age, sex, orthostatic intolerance, MMSE errors, and number of cardiovascular conditions. MGS and UGS were more explainable than GSR. All three models contain features from all five categories. There were common features to all three models (age, grip strength, chair stands time, mean motor reaction time in the choice reaction time test, and height), but also some features unique to each of them. Overall, findings on all three models were clinically plausible and support a network physiology approach to the understanding of predictors of performance-based tasks. By employing an explainable machine learning technique, our observations may help clinicians gain new insights into the multisystem predictors of gait speed and gait speed reserve 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".