MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323031833 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280029

Predictors of the rate of cognitive decline in older adults using machine learning

2023· article· en· W4323031833 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Ahmadzadeh, Theodore D. Cosco, John R. Best, Gregory J. Christie, Steve DiPaola

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute on AgingEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of ManchesterUniversity College LondonGovernment of the United KingdomUniversity of East AngliaNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCognitionLonelinessCognitive declineLongitudinal studyGerontologyMultivariate analysisMedicinePsychologyDemographyDementiaPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The longitudinal rates of cognitive decline among aging populations are heterogeneous. Few studies have investigated the possibility of implementing prognostic models to predict cognitive changes with the combination of categorical and continuous data from multiple domains. OBJECTIVE: Implement a multivariate robust model to predict longitudinal cognitive changes over 12 years among older adults and to identify the most significant predictors of cognitive changes using machine learning techniques. METHOD: In total, data of 2733 participants aged 50-85 years from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing are included. Two categories of cognitive changes were determined including minor cognitive decliners (2361 participants, 86.4%) and major cognitive decliners (372 participants, 13.6%) over 12 years from wave 2 (2004-2005) to wave 8 (2016-2017). Machine learning methods were used to implement the predictive models and to identify the predictors of cognitive decline using 43 baseline features from seven domains including sociodemographic, social engagement, health, physical functioning, psychological, health-related behaviors, and baseline cognitive tests. RESULTS: The model predicted future major cognitive decliners from those with the minor cognitive decline with a relatively high performance. The overall AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of prediction were 72.84%, 78.23%, and 67.41%, respectively. Furthermore, the top 7 ranked features with an important role in predicting major vs minor cognitive decliners included age, employment status, socioeconomic status, self-rated memory changes, immediate word recall, the feeling of loneliness, and vigorous physical activity. In contrast, the five least important baseline features consisted of smoking, instrumental activities of daily living, eye disease, life satisfaction, and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSION: The present study indicated the possibility of identifying individuals at high risk of future major cognitive decline as well as potential risk/protective factors of cognitive decline among older adults. The findings could assist in improving the effective interventions to delay cognitive decline among aging populations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→