Exploring the Perspectives of Older Adults on a Digital Brain Health Platform Using Natural Language Processing: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although digital technology represents a growing field aiming to revolutionize early Alzheimer disease risk prediction and monitoring, the perspectives of older adults on an integrated digital brain health platform have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the perspectives of older adults on a digital brain health platform by conducting semistructured interviews and analyzing their transcriptions by natural language processing. METHODS: The study included 28 participants from the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, all of whom engaged with a digital brain health platform over an initial assessment period of 14 days. Semistructured interviews were conducted to collect data on participants' experiences with the digital brain health platform. The transcripts generated from these interviews were analyzed using natural language processing techniques. The frequency of positive and negative terms was evaluated through word count analysis. A sentiment analysis was used to measure the emotional tone and subjective perceptions of the participants toward the digital platform. RESULTS: Word count analysis revealed a generally positive sentiment toward the digital platform, with "like," "well," and "good" being the most frequently mentioned positive terms. However, terms such as "problem" and "hard" indicated certain challenges faced by participants. Sentiment analysis showed a slightly positive attitude with a median polarity score of 0.13 (IQR 0.08-0.15), ranging from -1 (completely negative) to 1 (completely positive), and a median subjectivity score of 0.51 (IQR 0.47-0.53), ranging from 0 (completely objective) to 1 (completely subjective). These results suggested an overall positive attitude among the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the importance of understanding older adults' attitudes toward digital health platforms amid the comprehensive evolution of the digitalization era. Future research should focus on refining digital solutions to meet the specific needs of older adults, fostering a more personalized approach to brain health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".