MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404171418 · doi:10.2196/60673

Sensor-Derived Measures of Motor and Cognitive Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis Using Unsupervised Smartphone-Based Assessments: Proof-of-Concept Study

2024· article· en· W4404171418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Scaramozza, Aurélie Ruet, Patrizia A. Chiesa, Laïtissia Ahamada, E Bartholomé, Loïc Carment, Julie Charré‐Morin, Gautier Cosne, Léa Diouf, Christine C. Guo, Adrien Juraver, Christoph M. Kanzler, Angelos Karatsidis, Claudia Mazzà, Joaquin Penalver-Andres, Marta Ruíz, Aurore Saubusse, Gabrielle Simoneau, Alf Scotland, Zhaonan Sun, Johan van Beek, Lauren Zajac, Shibeshih Belachew, Bruno Brochet, Nolan Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de BordeauxBiogen
KeywordsProof of conceptMultiple sclerosisCognitionPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smartphones and wearables are revolutionizing the assessment of cognitive and motor function in neurological disorders, allowing for objective, frequent, and remote data collection. However, these assessments typically provide a plethora of sensor-derived measures (SDMs), and selecting the most suitable measure for a given context of use is a challenging, often overlooked problem. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aims to develop and apply an SDM selection framework, including automated data quality checks and the evaluation of statistical properties, to identify robust SDMs that describe the cognitive and motor function of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: The proposed framework was applied to data from a cross-sectional study involving 85 people with MS and 68 healthy participants who underwent in-clinic supervised and remote unsupervised smartphone-based assessments. The assessment provided high-quality recordings from cognitive, manual dexterity, and mobility tests, from which 47 SDMs, based on established literature, were extracted using previously developed and publicly available algorithms. These SDMs were first separately and then jointly screened for bias and normality by 2 expert assessors. Selected SDMs were then analyzed to establish their reliability, using an intraclass correlation coefficient and minimal detectable change at 95% CI. The convergence of selected SDMs with in-clinic MS functional measures and patient-reported outcomes was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 16 (34%) of the 47 SDMs passed the selection framework. All selected SDMs demonstrated moderate-to-good reliability in remote settings (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.5-0.85; minimal detectable change at 95% CI 19%-35%). Selected SDMs extracted from the smartphone-based cognitive test demonstrated good-to-excellent correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient, |ρ|>0.75) with the in-clinic Symbol Digit Modalities Test and fair correlation with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores (0.25≤|ρ|<0.5). SDMs extracted from the manual dexterity tests showed either fair correlation (0.25≤|ρ|<0.5) or were not correlated (|ρ|<0.25) with the in-clinic 9-hole peg test and EDSS scores. Most selected SDMs from mobility tests showed fair correlation with the in-clinic timed 25-foot walk test and fair to moderate-to-good correlation (0.5<|ρ|≤0.75) with EDSS scores. SDM correlations with relevant patient-reported outcomes varied by functional domain, ranging from not correlated (cognitive test SDMs) to good-to-excellent correlation (|ρ|>0.75) for mobility test SDMs. Overall, correlations were similar when smartphone-based tests were performed in a clinic or remotely. CONCLUSIONS: Reported results highlight that smartphone-based assessments are suitable tools to remotely obtain high-quality SDMs of cognitive and motor function in people with MS. The presented SDM selection framework promises to increase the interpretability and standardization of smartphone-based SDMs in people with MS, paving the way for their future use in interventional trials.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→