MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413962831 · doi:10.1055/a-2657-8212

Analyzing Mobility Indicators Using Machine Learning to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4413962831 on OpenAlex
Salamah Alshammari, Munirah Naeem Alsubaie, Mathieu Figeys, Adriana Ríos Rincón, Victor E. Ezeugwu, Shaniff Esmail, Christine Daum, Lili Liu, Antonio Miguel Cruz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Clinical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine learningPsycINFOComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDementiaMEDLINERandom forestScopusWalkabilityAlgorithmGerontologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global aging population is rapidly increasing, and the prevalence of age-related cognitive conditions, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), is becoming more common. This condition, which represents intermediate stages between normal aging and dementia, underscores the importance of early detection and timely intervention to address the growing demand for health services. Traditional cognitive assessments have limitations, such as the consistency of results, prompting the need for innovative technology-based solutions.This study aimed to examine how technology-based mobility data collection methods and machine learning algorithms are used to detect MCI in adults.A systematic scoping review was conducted to identify papers that analyzed mobility-related data using machine learning algorithms, focusing on adults aged 18 or older with MCI. Seven databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, IEEE Xplore, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library, yielding 2,901 papers.Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria, highlighting 116 mobility indicators used to classify or indicate MCI. Wearable devices were the most common data collection method, with mobile applications being the least utilized. The most frequently reported mobility indicator for walking was walking speed. For driving, indicators included the number of hard braking events, the number of night trips, and speed. Logistic regression, random forest, and neural networks were the most used machine learning algorithms. Overall, the mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of all the algorithms were 86.1% (standard deviation [SD] = 6.7%), 84% (SD = 6.5%), and 72.8% (SD = 12%), respectively. The mean area under the curve and the harmonic mean of precision and recall scores (F1) were 0.77 (SD = 0.08) and 0.83 (SD = 0.16), respectively.This review highlights the use of technology-based methods, particularly wearable devices, in assessing mobility and applying machine learning algorithms to detect MCI. However, a notable gap in research on mobile app-based mobility monitoring suggests a promising direction for future studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.382 · 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