MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404624384 · doi:10.2196/59396

A Multivariable Prediction Model for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Algorithm Development and Validation

2024· article· en· W4404624384 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Soyeon Oh, Bada Kang, Dahye Hong, Jennifer Ivy Kim, Hyewon Jeong, Jinyeop Song, Minkyu Jeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaRandom forestGradient boostingMachine learningLogistic regressionArtificial intelligenceReceiver operating characteristicAdaBoostSupport vector machineComputer scienceMedicineGerontologyAlgorithmDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) poses significant challenges in early diagnosis and timely intervention. Underdiagnosis, coupled with the economic and social burden of dementia, necessitates more precise detection methods. Machine learning (ML) algorithms show promise in managing complex data for MCI and dementia prediction. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the predictive accuracy of ML models in identifying the onset of MCI and dementia using the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (KLoSA) dataset. METHODS: This study used data from the KLoSA, a comprehensive biennial survey that tracks the demographic, health, and socioeconomic aspects of middle-aged and older Korean adults from 2018 to 2020. Among the 6171 initial households, 4975 eligible older adult participants aged 60 years or older were selected after excluding individuals based on age and missing data. The identification of MCI and dementia relied on self-reported diagnoses, with sociodemographic and health-related variables serving as key covariates. The dataset was categorized into training and test sets to predict MCI and dementia by using multiple models, including logistic regression, light gradient-boosting machine, XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting), CatBoost, random forest, gradient boosting, AdaBoost, support vector classifier, and k-nearest neighbors, and the training and test sets were used to evaluate predictive performance. The performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Class imbalances were addressed via weights. Shapley additive explanation values were used to determine the contribution of each feature to the prediction rate. RESULTS: Among the 4975 participants, the best model for predicting MCI onset was random forest, with a median AUC of 0.6729 (IQR 0.3883-0.8152), followed by k-nearest neighbors with a median AUC of 0.5576 (IQR 0.4555-0.6761) and support vector classifier with a median AUC of 0.5067 (IQR 0.3755-0.6389). For dementia onset prediction, the best model was XGBoost, achieving a median AUC of 0.8185 (IQR 0.8085-0.8285), closely followed by light gradient-boosting machine with a median AUC of 0.8069 (IQR 0.7969-0.8169) and AdaBoost with a median AUC of 0.8007 (IQR 0.7907-0.8107). The Shapley values highlighted pain in everyday life, being widowed, living alone, exercising, and living with a partner as the strongest predictors of MCI. For dementia, the most predictive features were other contributing factors, education at the high school level, education at the middle school level, exercising, and monthly social engagement. CONCLUSIONS: ML algorithms, especially XGBoost, exhibited the potential for predicting MCI onset using KLoSA data. However, no model has demonstrated robust accuracy in predicting MCI and dementia. Sociodemographic and health-related factors are crucial for initiating cognitive conditions, emphasizing the need for multifaceted predictive models for early identification and intervention. These findings underscore the potential and limitations of ML in predicting cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older adults.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207