Prediction of Mild Cognitive Impairment Status: Pilot Study of Machine Learning Models Based on Longitudinal Data From Fitness Trackers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early signs of Alzheimer disease (AD) are difficult to detect, causing diagnoses to be significantly delayed to time points when brain damage has already occurred and current experimental treatments have little effect on slowing disease progression. Tracking cognitive decline at early stages is critical for patients to make lifestyle changes and consider new and experimental therapies. Frequently studied biomarkers are invasive and costly and are limited for predicting conversion from normal to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use data collected from fitness trackers to predict MCI status. METHODS: In this pilot study, fitness trackers were worn by 20 participants: 12 patients with MCI and 8 age-matched controls. We collected physical activity, heart rate, and sleep data from each participant for up to 1 month and further developed a machine learning model to predict MCI status. RESULTS: Our machine learning model was able to perfectly separate between MCI and controls (area under the curve=1.0). The top predictive features from the model included peak, cardio, and fat burn heart rate zones; resting heart rate; average deep sleep time; and total light activity time. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a longitudinal digital biomarker differentiates between controls and patients with MCI in a very cost-effective and noninvasive way and hence may be very useful for identifying patients with very early AD who can benefit from clinical trials and new, disease-modifying therapies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".