MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094956682 · doi:10.14288/1.0450524

A Machine Learning Approach to Modify the Neurocognitive Frailty Index for the Prediction of Cognitive Status in the Canadian Population

2025· article· en· W7094956682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveCognitionPredictive validityPopulationSupport vector machineStressorArtificial neural networkScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objective: Frailty, a geriatric syndrome characterized by decreased reserve and resistance to stressors in older adults, has been established as a robust predictor of health outcomes. Recently, the Neurocognitive Frailty Index (NFI) was introduced, including 42 physical and cognitive elements that collectively assess an individual’s vulnerability to age-related health decline. While this multidimensional approach improves predictive accuracy for cognitive decline, its high dimensionality might be a barrier to widespread adoption. Methods: We employed several machine learning techniques to reduce the dimensions of NFI while maintaining its predictive power. We trained five models: Network Analysis, neural networks, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator Regression (LASSO), Random Forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). Each model was calibrated using a dataset from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, which included various cognitive, health, and functional variables. Results: Results indicated that six variables had minimal impact on outcome. This reduction in dimensionality resulted in a modified NFI scale including 36 elements, while maintaining good predictive performance for cognitive change similar to the original NFI. Conclusions: Our findings support the feasibility of applying machine learning techniques to modify predictive models in neurodegenerative diseases beyond frailty assessment. We recommend exploring the application of this scale using other data. The results also emphasize the potential of machine learning approaches for improving predictive models, highlighting their value as a tool for advancing our understanding of aging and its complexities.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207