MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387529946 · doi:10.2196/45876

Differences in Life Space Activity Patterns Between Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment Living Alone or as a Couple: Cohort Study Using Passive Activity Sensing

2023· article· en· W4387529946 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marijn Muurling, Wan‐Tai M. Au‐Yeung, Zachary Beattie, Chao‐Yi Wu, Hiroko H. Dodge, Nathaniel Rodrigues, Sarah Gothard, Lisa C. Silbert, Lisa L. Barnes, Joel S. Steele, Jeffrey Kaye

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthAmsterdam NeuroscienceAlzheimer NederlandHealth Services Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsBedroomActivities of daily livingLiving roomCognitive impairmentGeneralizability theoryNursing homesAssisted Living FacilityGerontologyPsychologyMedicineLiving spaceCognitionAudiologyAssisted livingDemographyPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measuring function with passive in-home sensors has the advantages of real-world, objective, continuous, and unobtrusive measurement. However, previous studies have focused on 1-person homes only, which limits their generalizability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the life space activity patterns of participants living alone with those of participants living as a couple and to compare people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with cognitively normal participants in both 1- and 2-person homes. METHODS: Passive infrared motion sensors and door contact sensors were installed in 1- and 2-person homes with cognitively normal residents or residents with MCI. A home was classified as an MCI home if at least 1 person in the home had MCI. Time out of home (TOOH), independent life space activity (ILSA), and use of the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom were calculated. Data were analyzed using the following methods: (1) daily averages over 4 weeks, (2) hourly averages (time of day) over 4 weeks, or (3) longitudinal day-to-day changes. RESULTS: In total, 129 homes with people living alone (n=27, 20.9%, MCI and n=102, 79.1%, no-MCI homes) and 52 homes with people living as a couple (n=24, 46.2%, MCI and n=28, 53.8%, no-MCI homes) were included with a mean follow-up of 719 (SD 308) days. Using all 3 analysis methods, we found that 2-person homes showed a shorter TOOH, a longer ILSA, and shorter living room and kitchen use. In MCI homes, ILSA was higher in 2-person homes but lower in 1-person homes. The effects of MCI status on other outcomes were only found when using the hourly averages or longitudinal day-to-day changes over time, and they depended on the household type (alone vs residing as a couple). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in-home behavior is different when a participant is living alone compared to when they are living as a couple, meaning that the household type should be considered when studying in-home behavior. The effects of MCI status can be detected with in-home sensors, even in 2-person homes, but data should be analyzed on an hour-to-hour basis or longitudinally.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207