Interpretable machine learning for precision cognitive aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Machine performance has surpassed human capabilities in various tasks, yet the opacity of complex models limits their adoption in critical fields such as healthcare. Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged to address this by enhancing transparency and trust in AI decision-making. However, a persistent gap exists between interpretability and performance, as black-box models, such as deep neural networks, often outperform white-box models, such as regression-based approaches. To bridge this gap, the Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), a class of generalized additive models has been introduced, combining the strengths of interpretable and high-performing models. EBM may be particularly well-suited for cognitive health research, where traditional models struggle to capture nonlinear effects in cognitive aging and account for inter- and intra-individual variability. Methods: This cross-sectional study applies EBM to investigate the relationship between demographic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, and cognitive performance in a sample of 3,482 healthy older adults. The EBM's performance is compared against Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, Multilayer Perceptron, and Extreme Gradient Boosting, evaluating predictive accuracy and interpretability. Results: The findings reveal that EBM provides valuable insights into cognitive aging, surpassing traditional models while maintaining competitive accuracy with more complex machine learning approaches. Notably, EBM highlights variations in how lifestyle activities impact cognitive performance, particularly differences between engaging in and refraining from specific activities, challenging regression-based assumptions. Moreover, our results show that the effects of lifestyle factors are heterogeneous across cognitive groups, with some individuals demonstrating significant cognitive changes while others remain resilient to these influences. Discussion: These findings highlight EBM's potential in cognitive aging research, offering both interpretability and accuracy to inform personalized strategies for mitigating cognitive decline. By bridging the gap between explainability and performance, this study advances the use of XAI in healthcare and cognitive aging research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".