Sleep monitoring challenges in patients with neurocognitive disorders: A cross‐sectional analysis of missing data from activity trackers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Activity monitors, such as Fitbits®, are being used increasingly for research purposes and data have been validated in healthy community‐dwelling older adults. Given the lack of research in older adults with neurocognitive disorders, we investigated the consistency of sleep data recorded from a wrist‐worn activity monitor in this population. Methods Fitbit® activity monitors were worn by hospitalized older adults as part of a parent study investigating sleep and step count in patients recovering from hip fracture surgery in a tertiary care academic hospital in Hamilton, Canada between March 2018 and June 2019. In this secondary analysis, we compared the proportion of missing sleep data between participants with and without a neurocognitive disorder and used a multivariable model to assess the association between neurocognitive disorder and missing sleep data. Results Of 67 participants included in the analysis, 22 had a neurocognitive disorder (median age: 86.5 years). Sleep data were missing for 47% of the neurocognitive disorder group and 23% of the non‐neurocognitive disorder group. The presence of a neurocognitive disorder was associated with an increased likelihood of missing sleep data using the Fitbit® activity monitors (adjusted odds ratio: 3.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–11.73, p = 0.04). Conclusion The inconsistent nature of sleep data tracking in hospitalized older adults with neurocognitive disorders highlights the challenges of using interventions in patient populations who are often excluded from validation studies. As opportunities expand for activity monitoring in persons with neurocognitive disorders, novel technologies not previously studied in this group should be used with caution.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".