MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312086126 · doi:10.1002/alz.069281

A pilot study to investigate postural sway and saccadic eye movements comprehensively for MCI classification

2022· article· en· W4312086126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu Imaoka, Laura Hauri, Andri Flury, Eling D. de Bruin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadic maskingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEye movementCognitive Assessment SystemOrientation (vector space)Physical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPsychologyTask (project management)AudiologyDementiaCognitive impairmentMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While single assessment of postural sway or saccadic eye movements is potentially useful for dementia screening at clinical settings [1, 2], multimodal assessment of the two movements could improve the screening accuracy [3‐5]. We have developed a novel comprehensive assessment system of posture and saccades, with integrated additional cognitive tasks of visuospatial memory and spatial orientation. We hypothesised that the new system would improve the classification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Method 23 older adults joined the experiment and were split into two group based on the score of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [6]: 20 healthy older adults (HA) (70.35±4.93 years, 11 men / 9 women) and 3 older adults with MCI (74.7±4.04 years, 1 man / 2 women). The assessment system consists of stabilometer (GP‐5000, ANIMA Corporation, Japan) and a head‐mounted display virtual reality (VR) technology (VIVE Pro Eye, HTC Corporation, Taiwan). We measured postural sway and pro‐ or anti‐saccadic eye movements simultaneously in each of three different VR environments: #1) no additional cognitive task, #2) with visuospatial memory task, and #3) with spatial orientation task. We compared the parameters of saccades and postural sway between HA and MCI groups. Result HA group achieved the MoCA score of 27.2±1.64, while MCI group scored 20.3±2.08 ( P =0.006). Our analysis did not find significant differences between the two groups in all parameters. However, we observed moderate effect on standard deviation of centre of pressure in medio‐lateral direction in two test conditions: 1) the condition with pro‐saccade and visuospatial memory tasks ( P =0.14; effect size = 0.32) and 2) the condition with anti‐saccade and spatial orientation tasks ( P =0.09; effect size = 0.36). Conclusion Moderate effect was observed on postural sway behaviours in the two test conditions. Since these conditions theoretically activate wider areas of the brain, our comprehensive assessment approach could be useful for dementia screening. Future research requires more sample size of MCI population for further analysis.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207