MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312036768 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igac059.2770

MACHINE LEARNING TO PREDICT HOMEBOUND STATUS IN OLDER ADULTS USING CANADIAN LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON AGING DATASET

2022· article· en· W4312036768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shehroz S. Khan, Can Cui, Andrea Iaboni

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableGerontologyRandom forestMissing dataMedicineCohortImputation (statistics)Classifier (UML)PopulationMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Individuals who are unable to leave their home or with great difficulty are considered homebound or semi-homebound. Homebound status is strongly associated with disability, social isolation, healthcare use and costs, and mortality. Most homebound older adults have multiple chronic conditions and poor health. There is not enough information about homebounded older adults in Canada. The Comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) presents an excellent opportunity to study the complex factors associated with homebound status and the interplay between physical, social, psychological, and environmental determinants over time. This is a population-level study which makes use of provincial healthcare registration data to sample older adults across the country. We obtained the first wave of CLSA dataset containing samples from 21667 individuals over 3223 variables. We developed a definition of ‘homeboundedness’ in using life-space index variables present in the CLSA datatset. The dataset contained numerical, categorical and missing values. After preprocessing, we selected 1101 Homebound and 20521 Non-Homebound individuals, and 1771 variables. We showed that Random Forest classifier (with missing values) provided an AUC ROC and PR of 0.89 and 0.49. The missing value imputation did not improve the results significantly. Using feature hashing, we converted the dataset to numerical values; the AUCs improved to 0.96 and 0.71 at the cost of losing interpretation. In future, we will consult clinical experts in choosing the relevant features and use analytical methods to select features and compare. We will also test these predictive models on the next wave of this dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→