Machine Learning Classification of Cognitive Status in Community-Dwelling Sarcopenic Women: A SHAP-Based Analysis of Physical Activity and Anthropometric Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Sarcopenia, characterized by progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function, has increasingly been recognized not only as a physical health concern but also as a potential risk factor for cognitive decline. This study investigates the application of machine learning algorithms to classify cognitive status based on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores in community-dwelling sarcopenic women. Materials and Methods: A dataset of 67 participants was analyzed, with MMSE scores categorized into severe (≤17) and mild (>17) cognitive impairment. Eight classification models—MLP, CatBoost, LightGBM, XGBoost, Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), Logistic Regression (LR), and AdaBoost—were evaluated using a repeated holdout strategy over 100 iterations. Hyperparameter optimization was performed via Bayesian optimization, and model performance was assessed using metrics including weighted F1-score (w_f1), accuracy, precision, recall, PR-AUC, and ROC-AUC. Results: Among the models, CatBoost achieved the highest w_f1 (87.05 ± 2.85%) and ROC-AUC (90 ± 5.65%), while AdaBoost and GB showed superior PR-AUC scores (92.49% and 91.88%, respectively), indicating strong performance in handling class imbalance and threshold sensitivity. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis revealed that moderate physical activity (moderatePA minutes), walking days, and sitting time were among the most influential features, with higher physical activity associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment. Anthropometric factors such as age, BMI, and weight also contributed significantly. Conclusions: The results highlight the effectiveness of boosting-based models in capturing complex patterns in clinical data and provide interpretable evidence supporting the role of modifiable lifestyle factors in cognitive health. These findings suggest that machine learning, combined with explainable AI, can enhance risk assessment and inform targeted interventions for cognitive decline in older women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".