Optimizing Detection and Prediction of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis With Ambulatory Cognitive Tests: Protocol for the Longitudinal Observational CogDetect-MS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction is a common problem in multiple sclerosis (MS). Progress toward understanding and treating cognitive dysfunction is thwarted by the limitations of traditional cognitive tests, which demonstrate poor sensitivity and ecological validity. Ambulatory methods of assessing cognitive function in the lived environment may improve the detection of subtle changes in cognitive function and the identification of predictors of cognitive changes and downstream effects of cognitive change on other functional domains. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the study design and protocol for the Optimizing Detection and Prediction of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (CogDetect-MS) study, a 2-year longitudinal observational study designed to examine short- and long-term changes in cognition, predictors of cognitive change, and effects of cognitive change on social and physical function in MS. METHODS: Participants-ambulatory adults with medically documented MS-are assessed over the course of 2 years on an annual basis (3 assessments: T1, T2, and T3). A comprehensive survey battery, in-laboratory cognitive and physical performance tests, and 14 days of ambulatory data collection are completed at each annual assessment. The 14-day ambulatory data collection includes continuous wrist-worn accelerometry (to measure daytime activity and sleep); ecological momentary assessments (real-time self-report) of somatic symptoms, mood, and contextual factors; and 2 brief, validated cognitive tests, administered by smartphone app 4 times per day. Our aim was to recruit 250 participants. To ensure standard test protocol administration, all examiners passed a rigorous examiner certification process. Planned analyses include (1) nonparametric 2-tailed t tests to compare in-person to ambulatory cognitive test scores; (2) mixed effects models to examine cognitive changes over time; (3) mixed effects multilevel models to evaluate whether ambulatory measures of physical activity, sleep, fatigue, pain, mood, and stress predict changes in objective or subjective measures of cognitive functioning; and (4) mixed effects multilevel models to examine whether ambulatory measures of cognitive functioning predict social and physical functioning over short (within-day) and long (over years) time frames. RESULTS: The study was funded in August 2021 and approved by the University of Michigan Medical Institutional Review Board on January 27, 2022. A total of 274 adults with MS (first participant enrolled on May 12, 2022) have been recruited and provided T1 data. Follow-up data collection will continue through March 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the CogDetect-MS study will shed new light on the temporal dynamics of cognitive function, somatic and mood symptoms, sleep, physical activity, and physical and social function. These insights have the potential to improve our understanding of changes in cognitive function in MS and enable us to generate new interventions to maintain or improve cognitive function in those with MS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05252195; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05252195. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/59876.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".