MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226200811 · doi:10.1002/dad2.12305

Wearable multimodal sensors for the detection of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia using personalized machine learning models

2022· article· en· W4226200811 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Iaboni, Sofija Spasojević, Kristine Newman, Lori Schindel Martin, Angel Wang, Bing Ye, Alex Mihailidis, Shehroz S. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaWearable computerAggressionPersonalizationWearable technologyDistressImpulsivityPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychiatryComputer scienceDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) signal distress or unmet needs and present a risk to people with dementia and their caregivers. Variability in the expression of these symptoms is a barrier to the performance of digital biomarkers. The aim of this study was to use wearable multimodal sensors to develop personalized machine learning models capable of detecting individual patterns of BPSD. Methods: Older adults with dementia and BPSD (n = 17) on a dementia care unit wore a wristband during waking hours for up to 8 weeks. The wristband captured motion (accelerometer) and physiological indicators (blood volume pulse, electrodermal activity, and skin temperature). Agitation or aggression events were tracked, and research staff reviewed videos to precisely annotate the sensor data. Personalized machine learning models were developed using 1-minute intervals and classifying the presence of behavioral symptoms, and behavioral symptoms by type (motor agitation, verbal aggression, or physical aggression). Results: Behavioral events were rare, representing 3.4% of the total data. Personalized models classified behavioral symptoms with a median area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.87 (range 0.64-0.95). The relative importance of the different sensor features to the predictive models varied both by individual and behavior type. Discussion: Patterns of sensor data associated with BPSD are highly individualized, and future studies of the digital phenotyping of these behaviors would benefit from personalization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease MonitoringSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207