Identifying Predictive Risk Factors for Future Cognitive Impairment Among Chinese Older Adults: Longitudinal Prediction Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The societal burden of cognitive impairment in China has prompted researchers to develop clinical prediction models aimed at making risk assessments that enable preventative interventions. However, it is unclear what types of risk factors best predict future cognitive impairment, if known risk factors make equally accurate predictions across different socioeconomic groups, and if existing prediction models are equally accurate across different subpopulations. Objective: This paper aimed to identify which domain of health information best predicts future cognitive impairment among Chinese older adults and to examine if discrepancies exist in predictive ability across different population subsets. Methods: Using data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, we quantified the ability of demographics, instrumental activities of daily living, activities of daily living, cognitive tests, social factors and hobbies, psychological factors, diet, exercise and sleep, chronic diseases, and 3 recently published logistic regression-based prediction models to predict 3-year risk of cognitive impairment in the general Chinese population and among male, female, rural-dwelling, urban-dwelling, educated, and not formally educated older adults. Predictive ability was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity-specificity curves through 20 repeats of 10-fold cross-validation. Results: A total of 4047 participants were included in the study, of which 337 (8.3%) developed cognitive impairment 3 years after baseline data collection. The risk factor groups with the best predictive ability in the general population were demographics (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.77-0.78), cognitive tests (AUC 0.72, 95% CI 0.72-0.73), and instrumental activities of daily living (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.70-0.71). Demographics, cognitive tests, instrumental activities of daily living, and all 3 recreated prediction models had significantly higher AUCs when making predictions among female older adults compared to male older adults and among older adults with no formal education compared to those with some education. Conclusions: This study suggests that demographics, cognitive tests, and instrumental activities of daily living are the most useful risk factors for predicting future cognitive impairment among Chinese older adults. However, the most predictive risk factors and existing models have lower predictive power among male, urban-dwelling, and educated older adults. More efforts are needed to ensure that equally accurate risk assessments can be conducted across different socioeconomic groups in China.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".