MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393378936 · doi:10.3390/brainsci14040351

A Subtype Perspective on Cognitive Trajectories in Healthy Aging

2024· article· en· W4393378936 on OpenAlexaff
Emma A. Rodrigues, Gregory J. Christie, Theodore D. Cosco, Faranak Farzan, Andrew Sixsmith, Sylvain Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionSubtypingPsychological interventionPerspective (graphical)PopulationIdentification (biology)PsychologyProcess (computing)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental healthBiologyEcologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive aging is a complex and dynamic process characterized by changes due to genetics and environmental factors, including lifestyle choices and environmental exposure, which contribute to the heterogeneity observed in cognitive outcomes. This heterogeneity is particularly pronounced among older adults, with some individuals maintaining stable cognitive function while others experience complex, non-linear changes, making it difficult to identify meaningful decline accurately. Current research methods range from population-level modeling to individual-specific assessments. In this work, we review these methodologies and propose that population subtyping should be considered as a viable alternative. This approach relies on early individual-specific detection methods that can lead to an improved understanding of changes in individual cognitive trajectories. The improved understanding of cognitive trajectories through population subtyping can lead to the identification of meaningful changes and the determination of timely, effective interventions. This approach can aid in informing policy decisions and in developing targeted interventions that promote cognitive health, ultimately contributing to a more personalized understanding of the aging process within society and reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207