MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413838575 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp19823

The Use of Actigraphy Indices in the Diagnosis of Dementia

2025· article· en· W4413838575 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Haarini Suntharalingam, Hareshan Suntharalingam, Nasim Montazeri Ghahjaverestan

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphyDementiaMedicineEnvironmental sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineCircadian rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is a life-altering neurocognitive disorder that affects the independence and quality of life of over 700,000 Canadians. Early detection of dementia is crucial to improving patient outcomes. However, current gold-standard diagnostic methods such as cognitive assessments and neuroimaging can be quite expensive, invasive and inaccessible. Emerging evidence in sleep research suggests that sleep and circadian rhythm disruption is associated with neurodegeneration and B-amyloid accumulation, thus causing dementia. Given this association, this study aims to assess whether actigraphy, a wrist-based non-invasive device measuring circadian rhythm, could serve as a potential tool for diagnosing dementia in its early stages. We conducted a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of actigraphy in identifying sleep and circadian rhythm disruptions as dementia biomarkers. A systematic review of studies assessing actigraphy-based sleep and circadian rhythm parameters were gathered using Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria focused on populations over the age of 60 where actigraphy assessment occurred for at least a week. The exclusion criteria included studies assessing sleep using EEG and studies discussing dementia associated with Huntington’s disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV-associated dementia, normal pressure hydrocephalus and/or frontotemporal dementia. A total of 2757 studies were imported into Covidence for title and abstract screening of which 1766 studies were included in full text review. Within the full text review phase, further inclusion criteria parameters were established to narrow the scope of the review, limiting the timeframe of studies from 2020 to 2025 and solely including studies with a sample size greater than 100. After establishing these parameters, a total of 90 studies has been included in the final review. Our future work includes ultimately understanding whether actigraphy could be utilized as a viable and accessible diagnostic tool for dementia.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207