MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393321220 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28982

Brain vital signs as a quantitative measure of cognition: Methodological implementation in a care home environment

2024· article· en· W4393321220 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Ighalo, Eric D. Kirby, Xiaowei Song, Shaun D. Fickling, Gabriela Pawlowski, Sujoy Ghosh Hajra, Careesa C. Liu, Carlo Menon, Sudhin A. Shah, Frank Knoefel, Ryan C.N. D’Arcy

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityBruyèreUniversity of OttawaFraser HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaSurrey Memorial HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Frailty NetworkFraser Health AuthorityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsVital signsCognitionDementiaN400PsychologyEvent-related potentialAudiologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Managing cognitive function in care homes is a significant challenge. Individuals in care have a variety of scores across standard clinical assessments, such as the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE), and many of them have scores that fall within the range associated with dementia. A recent methodological advance, brain vital sign monitoring through auditory event-related potentials, provides an objective and sensitive physiological measurement to track abnormalities, differences, or changes in cognitive function. Taking advantage of point-of-care accessibility, the current study evaluated the methodological feasibility, the assessment of whether a particular research method can be successfully implemented, of quantitatively measuring cognition of care home residents using brain vital signs. Secondarily, the current study examined the relationship between brain vital signs, specifically the cognitive processing associated N400 component, and MMSE scores in care home residents. Materials and methods: Brain vital signs used the established N100 (auditory sensation), P300 (basic attention), and N400 (cognitive processing) event-related potential (ERP) components. A total of 52 residents were enrolled, with all participants evaluated using the MMSE. Participants were assigned into homogeneous groups based on their MMSE scores, and were categorized into low (n = 14), medium (n = 17), and high (n = 13) MMSE groups. Both brain vital sign measures and underlying ERP waveforms were examined. Statistical analyses used partial least squares correlation (PLS) analyses in which both MMSE and age were included as factors, as well as jackknife approaches, to test for significant brain vital sign changes. Results: < 0.05, corrected). Similarly, the jackknife approach emphasized the N400 latency difference between the low and high MMSE groups. Discussion and conclusion: It was possible to acquire brain vital signs measures in care home residents. Additionally, the current study evaluated brain vital signs relative to MMSE in this group. The comparison revealed significant decreasing in N400 response amplitude (cognitive processing) as a function of both MMSE score and age, as well as a slowing of N400 latency. The findings indicate that objective neurophysiological measures of impairment are detectable in care home residents across the span of MMSE scores. Direct comparison to MMSE- and age-related variables represents a critical initial step ahead of future studies that will investigate relative improvements in sensitivity, validity, reliability and related advantages of brain vital sign monitoring.

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207