Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Benchmarking Early Agitation Prediction in Community-Dwelling People with Dementia Using Multimodal Sensors and Machine Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Agitation in dementia can be forecast six hours ahead using passive in-home sensors, with a LightGBM model reaching AUC-ROC 0.9720 on a public benchmark.

desk verdict Useful first benchmark for agitation prediction on TIHM, but the headline 0.9720 AUC-ROC is an artifact of random 5-fold CV and a label-derived feature; the LOPO numbers are the honest ones. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06306 v1 pith:TDJNLMOX submitted 2025-05-23 eess.SP cs.CVcs.HCcs.LG

Ali Abedi , Charlene H. Chu , Shehroz S. Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.CVcs.HCcs.LG
keywords agitationpredictionearlyofmultimodalsensorspeoplelivingwithdementiamachinelearningdeepcommunity-basedcareTIHMdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that agitation episodes in people with dementia living at home can be predicted up to six hours in advance by machine learning models trained on passive in-home motion and physiology sensors. Using the TIHM dataset of 2,803 days from 56 community-dwelling participants, it benchmarks multiple models and problem formulations, with the strongest result from binary classification on 6-hour sensor windows: LightGBM reaches AUC-ROC 0.9720 and AUC-PR 0.4320 when day-quarter and current-agitation status are added as inputs. If correct, this would mean caregivers could be alerted before a distressing episode begins, using only privacy-preserving sensors rather than video or wearable devices that require active participation. The authors present this as the first broad benchmark of agitation prediction in community-based dementia care.

What carries the argument

The central object is a feature pipeline over the TIHM dataset: 32 statistical activity features (sum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation of hourly motion counts across eight household locations), 8 novel contextual activity features (total events, unique locations, location entropy, private-to-public ratio, location dominance ratio, back-and-forth count, active-location ratio, and number of transitions), and 8 physiology features (means of the eight physiological measurements per 6-hour timestamp). The prediction target is the clinician-verified agitation label at timestamp $t+1$, and the task is binary classification on the feature vector at time $t$. The argument is carried by the LightGBM gradient boosting classifier with a weighted loss function, evaluated under 5-fold cross-validation, with SHAP feature attributions identifying hallway movement variability as the top predictor.

What would settle it

Recompute the LightGBM result under participant-grouped cross-validation, keeping all samples from one participant in either the training or test set; if the AUC-ROC drops toward the leave-one-participant-out value of 0.8712 or lower, the 0.9720 figure reflects information leakage between consecutive time blocks rather than true predictive skill.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the current 6-hour timestamp of multimodal in-home sensor data is enough to predict whether agitation will occur in the next 6-hour window, and that adding contextual information (time of day and whether agitation is already occurring at the current timestamp) materially improves that prediction. In the binary tabular formulation with 5-fold cross-validation, the light gradient boosting machine achieves AUC-ROC 0.9720 and AUC-PR 0.4320, the highest reported in the paper. The paper also finds that a transformer model using the two most recent timestamps reaches AUC-ROC 0.9531 and AUC-PR 0.2277, and that anomaly-detection formulations are weaker overall, though One-Class SVM yields higher AUC-PR than the classification models. Taken together, the authors argue that agitation prediction, not just detection, is feasible in community settings with non-intrusive, privacy-preserving sensors.

Load-bearing premise

The headline results assume that 6-hour data segments from the same participant are independent and exchangeable, so randomly splitting them into training and test sets does not leak information about the same person or the same agitation episode into both sides of the experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Caregivers or monitoring systems could receive alerts up to six hours before a likely agitation episode, creating a window for behavioral or environmental intervention.
  • The approach relies only on passive motion sensors and routine physiological measurements such as blood pressure, heart rate, and weight, avoiding video and audio privacy concerns.
  • The strong contribution of day-quarter and current agitation status suggests that simple temporal context, rather than richer sensing modalities, drives much of the predictive accuracy.
  • The drop from 5-fold to leave-one-participant-out CV (LightGBM AUC-ROC from 0.9099 to 0.8712) shows that performance for unseen participants is lower but still substantial, indicating partial generalization across individuals.
  • The public TIHM benchmark can serve as a common testbed for future agitation-prediction methods, allowing direct comparison of new approaches against the reported numbers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The headline 5-fold CV results likely overstate real-world performance if consecutive 6-hour blocks from the same participant are not independent; re-evaluating with grouped or temporal cross-validation would probably lower the reported AUC-ROC.
  • Inference: Because time of day (sundowning) is such a strong predictor, a testable extension is to compare this model against a baseline that uses only clock time and current agitation status, with no sensor features, to quantify how much sensor data actually contributes.
  • Inference: The modest AUC-PR of 0.4320, despite a high AUC-ROC, implies that the positive class is hard to detect with precision; in practice, alert systems may need a high false-alarm tolerance or additional filters.
  • Inference: Excluding sleep data, which had 70% missingness, removes a modality that is plausibly informative for agitation; better imputation or dedicated sleep collection could improve predictions beyond what this benchmark shows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks machine learning models for early agitation prediction in community-dwelling people with dementia using the TIHM dataset. It introduces contextual activity features, compares binary classification (tabular and sequential) and anomaly detection formulations, and evaluates models with 5-fold and leave-one-participant-out cross-validation. The best reported result is an AUC-ROC of 0.9720 achieved by LightGBM with day-quarter and current agitation status features under 5-fold CV. The authors claim this is the first comprehensive benchmarking of agitation prediction in community-based dementia care.

Significance. If the reported performance is reliable, the paper would provide a useful baseline for a clinically important prediction task using a public dataset. The study's strengths include the use of a real-world multimodal dataset, a wide model comparison, and SHAP-based explainability. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a 5-fold CV protocol that does not respect participant or temporal independence; the paper's own LOPO results are substantially lower. The manuscript is therefore not yet ready in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1 and Figure 3] The 5-fold CV appears to split the 6-hour samples randomly across the full pooled dataset, without grouping by participant or by contiguous time blocks. Consecutive samples from the same participant are highly autocorrelated, so random splits can place near-duplicates of test samples in the training folds, inflating AUC. The paper's own LOPO rows in Table 1 show LightGBM W dropping from 0.9099 to 0.8712 AUC-ROC, and Gradient Boosting W from 0.8930 to 0.8588, when participant independence is respected. Because Figure 3 reports only 5-fold CV, the headline 0.9720 is not a valid estimate of performance for unseen participants or future time periods. Please report LOPO or temporally blocked CV for the augmented feature settings and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.2] The statement that including day-quarter and current agitation status "does not introduce information leakage" is correct only in the narrow sense of not using future labels. Current agitation status is the clinician-labeled outcome at time t, which is the same label stream as the target at t+1; if an agitation episode spans multiple 6-hour windows, the model can learn to predict continuation rather than onset. Under the random-split 5-fold CV used in Figure 3, this autoregressive feature can be memorized per participant or per episode. The paper should quantify how much of the improvement from 0.9099 to 0.9720 is due to the current agitation feature under LOPO or episode-aware splitting.
  3. [Table 1] Several unweighted models report F1-score 0 and sensitivity 0 (e.g., Gradient Boosting and LightGBM under 5-fold), meaning they predict no positive cases at the default threshold. Reporting accuracy 0.9875 for these models is misleading without noting that they are trivial classifiers; AUC values may be acceptable, but the table should either report threshold-independent metrics only or include a note on default thresholds. This affects comparability across models and protocols.
  4. [Section 5.3] The SHAP feature importance analysis is performed only under the same 5-fold CV protocol, so the feature rankings may be influenced by the same sample-autocorrelation issue. Recomputing the SHAP analysis under LOPO or a temporally blocked split would clarify whether the identified features (e.g., hallway-count-std) are stable predictors for unseen participants.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "up to six hours in advance" is ambiguous; the prediction is for the next 6-hour timestamp, so the actual horizon is 0 to 6 hours after the current window. Please clarify the prediction horizon.
  2. [Figures 1 and 3] There are typos in the axis labels: "Numbe" in Figure 1 and "agiatation" (twice) in Figure 3. Please correct these.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence reporting the interval between consecutive agitation episodes states "the mean and standard deviation of the interval ... were 2.43 days and 4.15 days" but does not specify which value is the mean and which is the standard deviation. Please clarify.
  4. [Section 4.1] Sleep data are excluded because of high missingness (70.21%), but the decision rule is not stated. Please justify the exclusion threshold and cite the referenced guidance [36,37] more specifically.
  5. [Section 2] The literature review is qualitative; a table comparing prior work on agitation prediction/detection (sample size, prediction vs detection, setting, sensor modalities, performance) would help substantiate the "first comprehensive benchmarking" claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmarking claims are empirical evaluations on an external public dataset, and no derivation or fitted parameter reduces to the inputs by construction.

full rationale

No significant circularity is present. This is an empirical benchmarking study on the externally collected TIHM dataset, and the central claim is a comparison of model performances under cross-validation rather than a derivation from an assumed first principle. The one feature that might look circular, the inclusion of current agitation status as an input to predict agitation at the next timestamp, is a legitimate time-lagged autoregressive feature: the paper explicitly states that day-quarter and current-timestamp agitation 'are derived solely from the current or past timestamps and exclude any future data' (Section 5.2), so the feature is not the target at t+1 by construction. The lower LOPO compared with 5-fold results (Table 1) is a generalization or evaluation-protocol concern, not a circularity, because the paper reports both protocols honestly and does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. Self-citations such as Khan et al. for prior agitation detection work are contextual and are not load-bearing for the paper's new benchmarking results. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is shown to reduce to the paper's own inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on the TIHM labels and preprocessing choices rather than on any new physical entity. No free parameters are explicitly tuned in the text, but hyperparameters and class weights are unspecified or chosen by hand, and the evaluation design (random 5-fold splits) is a load-bearing assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • Model hyperparameters for LightGBM, Gradient Boosting, Transformer, TabPFN, ROCKET, and anomaly detectors = not reported
    No hyperparameter settings, tuning procedure, or random seeds are given; these choices can materially affect AUC in small imbalanced datasets.
  • Class weight ratio for weighted loss = proportional to class distribution (approximately 1:99)
    Weights are set proportional to class distribution, a design choice that affects the operating point and could be considered a fitted parameter.
  • Mean imputation values for missing sensor readings = computed from training set
    Missing values are filled with training-set means, which are data-derived and could influence results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TIHM clinician-verified agitation labels are accurate and aligned to the correct 6-hour timestamps.
    Section 3 treats labels as ground truth; mislabeling or misalignment would directly affect all performance numbers.
  • domain assumption The 32 statistical activity features from Palermo et al. are appropriate for TIHM and were computed correctly.
    Section 4.2 adopts these features from reference [11] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Sleep data can be excluded without losing predictive signal for agitation.
    Section 4.1 excludes sleep due to 70.21% missingness; this assumes the missingness is not informative and no key agitation-related signal is lost.
  • domain assumption Mean imputation is valid for the missing physiology and activity values.
    Section 4.1 applies mean imputation; this assumes missing-at-random and ignores potential informative missingness.
  • domain assumption Random 5-fold CV treats 6-hour samples as independent.
    The evaluation relies on this assumption, which is likely violated by temporal autocorrelation within participants.
  • domain assumption The 6-hour timestamp and day-quarter features capture relevant temporal patterns without leakage.
    Section 5.2 asserts day quarter and current agitation do not leak future information; this is true by construction but assumes the labels are available at prediction time for the current timestamp.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking Early Agitation Prediction in Community-Dwelling People with Dementia Using Multimodal Sensors and Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDJNLMOX

@misc{pith2026250606306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking Early Agitation Prediction in Community-Dwelling People with Dementia Using Multimodal Sensors and Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDJNLMOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06306}
}
read the original abstract

Agitation is one of the most common responsive behaviors in people living with dementia, particularly among those residing in community settings without continuous clinical supervision. Timely prediction of agitation can enable early intervention, reduce caregiver burden, and improve the quality of life for both patients and caregivers. This study aimed to develop and benchmark machine learning approaches for the early prediction of agitation in community-dwelling older adults with dementia using multimodal sensor data. A new set of agitation-related contextual features derived from activity data was introduced and employed for agitation prediction. A wide range of machine learning and deep learning models was evaluated across multiple problem formulations, including binary classification for single-timestamp tabular sensor data and multi-timestamp sequential sensor data, as well as anomaly detection for single-timestamp tabular sensor data. The study utilized the Technology Integrated Health Management (TIHM) dataset, the largest publicly available dataset for remote monitoring of people living with dementia, comprising 2,803 days of in-home activity, physiology, and sleep data. The most effective setting involved binary classification of sensor data using the current 6-hour timestamp to predict agitation at the subsequent timestamp. Incorporating additional information, such as time of day and agitation history, further improved model performance, with the highest AUC-ROC of 0.9720 and AUC-PR of 0.4320 achieved by the light gradient boosting machine. This work presents the first comprehensive benchmarking of state-of-the-art techniques for agitation prediction in community-based dementia care using privacy-preserving sensor data. The approach enables accurate, explainable, and efficient agitation prediction, supporting proactive dementia care and aging in place.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06306 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. presents binary classification results using data from the n most recent timestamps as sequential data samples from TIHM. Models include a Trans￾former encoder and a combination of ROCKET [47] and GB [43] with a weighted loss function, trained on statistical and contextual activity and physiology fea￾tures under 5-fold CV. The Transformer consistently outperforms ROCKET, achieving the highest AUC-ROC and AUC-PR at n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) AUC-ROC and (b) AUC-PR for agitation prediction framed as a binary classification problem using tabular sensor data under 5-fold cross-validation, following the incorporation of additional information: day quarter and current agitation status. 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 Gradient Boosting LightGBM Logistic Regression Naïve Bayes AUC-ROC sensor data sensor data + day quarter sensor data + current agiatation sen… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dementia prevention, interven- tion, and care: 2024 report of the lancet standing commission,

    G. Livingston, J. Huntley, K. Y. Liu, S. G. Costafreda, G. Selbæk, S. Alladi, D. Ames, S. Banerjee, A. Burns, C. Brayneet al., “Dementia prevention, interven- tion, and care: 2024 report of the lancet standing commission,”The Lancet, vol. 404, no. 10452, pp. 572–628, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Dementia,

    World Health Organization, “Dementia,” 2023, accessed: 2025-04-16. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Dementia in home and community care,

    Canadian Institute for Health Information, “Dementia in home and community care,” 2018, accessed: 2025-04-

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Agitation and dementia: prevention and treatment strategies in acute and chronic conditions,

    C. Carrarini, M. Russo, F. Dono, F. Barbone, M. G. Rispoli, L. Ferri, M. Di Pietro, A. Digiovanni, P. Ajdinaj, R. Speranzaet al., “Agitation and dementia: prevention and treatment strategies in acute and chronic conditions,”Frontiers in neurology, vol. 12, p. 644317, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    In- stitutionalization risk and costs associated with agitation in alzheimer’s disease,

    M. Cloutier, M. Gauthier-Loiselle, P. Gagnon-Sanschagrin, A. Guerin, A. Hartry, R. A. Baker, R. Duffy, K. Gwin, M. S. Aigbogun, A. D. N. Initiativeet al., “In- stitutionalization risk and costs associated with agitation in alzheimer’s disease,” Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, vol. 5, pp. 851–861, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    The impact of agitation in dementia on caregivers: a real-world survey,

    J. Schein, C. R. Houle, A. L. Urganus, E. Jones, J. Pike, J. Husbands, and C. J. Willey, “The impact of agitation in dementia on caregivers: a real-world survey,” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 663–677, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Barriers and facilitators to care for agitation and/or aggression among persons living with de- mentia in long-term care,

    B. Wong, Z. Ismail, J. Watt, J. Holroyd-Leduc, and Z. Goodarzi, “Barriers and facilitators to care for agitation and/or aggression among persons living with de- mentia in long-term care,”BMC geriatrics, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 330, 2024. 14 Abedi et al

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A novel multi-modal sensor dataset and benchmark to detect agitation in people living with dementia in a residential care setting,

    S. S. Khan, P. K. Mishra, B. Ye, S. Patel, K. Newman, A. Mihailidis, and A. Iaboni, “A novel multi-modal sensor dataset and benchmark to detect agitation in people living with dementia in a residential care setting,”ACM Transactions on Comput- ing for Healthcare, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Privacy- protecting behaviours of risk detection in people with dementia using videos,

    P.K.Mishra,A.Iaboni,B.Ye,K.Newman,A.Mihailidis,andS.S.Khan,“Privacy- protecting behaviours of risk detection in people with dementia using videos,” BioMedical Engineering OnLine, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 4, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Sensor- based agitation prediction in institutionalized people with dementia a systematic review,

    J. K. Deters, S. Janus, J. A. L. Silva, H. J. Wörtche, and S. U. Zuidema, “Sensor- based agitation prediction in institutionalized people with dementia a systematic review,” Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 98, p. 101876, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Tihm: An open dataset for remote healthcare monitoring in dementia,

    F. Palermo, Y. Chen, A. Capstick, N. Fletcher-Loyd, C. Walsh, S. Kouchaki, J. True, O. Balazikova, E. Soreq, G. Scottet al., “Tihm: An open dataset for remote healthcare monitoring in dementia,”Scientific data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 606, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Data-driven forecasting of agitation for persons with dementia: A deep learning-based ap- proach,

    S. HekmatiAthar, H. Goins, R. Samuel, G. Byfield, and M. Anwar, “Data-driven forecasting of agitation for persons with dementia: A deep learning-based ap- proach,” SN computer science, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 326, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Dementiacaregiverexperiencesandrecommendationsforusingthebehavioraland environmental sensing and intervention system at home: usability and acceptability study,

    M. S. Anderson, A. Bankole, N. Homdee, B. A. Mitchell, G. E. Byfield, and J. Lach, “Dementiacaregiverexperiencesandrecommendationsforusingthebehavioraland environmental sensing and intervention system at home: usability and acceptability study,” JMIR aging, vol. 4, no. 4, p. e...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Nonpharmacologic management of behavioral symptoms in dementia,

    L. N. Gitlin, H. C. Kales, and C. G. Lyketsos, “Nonpharmacologic management of behavioral symptoms in dementia,”Jama, vol. 308, no. 19, pp. 2020–2029, 2012

    2020

  7. [15]

    Wristaccelerometryformonitoringdementiaagitationbehaviour in clinical settings: A scoping review,

    J. C.-W. Cheung, B. P.-H. So, K. H. M. Ho, D. W.-C. Wong, A. H.-F. Lam, and D.S.K.Cheung,“Wristaccelerometryformonitoringdementiaagitationbehaviour in clinical settings: A scoping review,”Frontiers in Psychiatry, vol. 13, p. 913213, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Available: https://www.cihi.ca/en/dementia-in-canada/ dementia-care-across-the-health-system/dementia-in-home-and-community-care

    [Online]. Available: https://www.cihi.ca/en/dementia-in-canada/ dementia-care-across-the-health-system/dementia-in-home-and-community-care

  9. [17]

    Heart rate variability and risk of agitation in alzheimer’s disease: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study,

    K. Y. Liu, E. A. Whitsel, G. Heiss, P. Palta, S. Reeves, F. V. Lin, M. Mather, J. P. Roiser, and R. Howard, “Heart rate variability and risk of agitation in alzheimer’s disease: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study,”Brain Communications, vol. 5, no. 6, p. fcad269, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Association between blood pressure variability with dementia and cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    R. A. De Heus, C. Tzourio, E. J. L. Lee, M. Opozda, A. D. Vincent, K. J. Anstey, A. Hofman, K. Kario, S. Lattanzi, L. J. Launeret al., “Association between blood pressure variability with dementia and cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Hypertension, ...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Sleep and agitation in nursing home residents with and without dementia,

    D. T. Brown, J. L. Westbury, and B. Schüz, “Sleep and agitation in nursing home residents with and without dementia,”International psychogeriatrics, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1945–1955, 2015

    1945

  12. [20]

    Wearable multimodal sensors for the detection of behav- ioral and psychological symptoms of dementia using personalized machine learning models,

    A. Iaboni, S. Spasojevic, K. Newman, L. Schindel Martin, A. Wang, B. Ye, A. Mi- hailidis, and S. S. Khan, “Wearable multimodal sensors for the detection of behav- ioral and psychological symptoms of dementia using personalized machine learning models,” Alzheimer’s & Dementia: ...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Artificial intelligence-driven virtual rehabilitation for people living in the community: A scoping review,

    A. Abedi, T. J. Colella, M. Pakosh, and S. S. Khan, “Artificial intelligence-driven virtual rehabilitation for people living in the community: A scoping review,”NPJ Digital Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 25, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Maison-multimodal ai-based sensor platform for older individuals,

    A. Abedi, F. Dayyani, C. Chu, and S. S. Khan, “Maison-multimodal ai-based sensor platform for older individuals,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW). IEEE, 2022, pp. 238–242. Agitation Prediction in Community-Dwelling People with Dementia 15

    2022

  15. [23]

    Applications and outcomes of internet of things for patients with alzheimer’s disease/dementia: A scoping review,

    A. Sheikhtaheri and F. Sabermahani, “Applications and outcomes of internet of things for patients with alzheimer’s disease/dementia: A scoping review,”BioMed Research International, vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 6274185, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Detecting agitation and aggres- sion in people with dementia using sensors—a systematic review,

    S. S. Khan, B. Ye, B. Taati, and A. Mihailidis, “Detecting agitation and aggres- sion in people with dementia using sensors—a systematic review,”Alzheimer’s & dementia, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 824–832, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Healthcare evolves from reactive to proactive,

    S. A. Waldman and A. Terzic, “Healthcare evolves from reactive to proactive,” Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, vol. 105, no. 1, p. 10, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Multidimensional assessment of challenging behaviors in advanced stages of dementia in nursing homes—the insidedem framework,

    S. Teipel, C. Heine, A. Hein, F. Krüger, A. Kutschke, S. Kernebeck, M. Halek, S. Bader, and T. Kirste, “Multidimensional assessment of challenging behaviors in advanced stages of dementia in nursing homes—the insidedem framework,” Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment ...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Methodology for establishing a community- wide life laboratory for capturing unobtrusive and continuous remote activity and health data,

    J. Kaye, C. Reynolds, M. Bowman, N. Sharma, T. Riley, O. Golonka, J. Lee, C. Quinn, Z. Beattie, J. Austinet al., “Methodology for establishing a community- wide life laboratory for capturing unobtrusive and continuous remote activity and health data,” Journal of Visualized Exp...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Daad: A framework for detecting agitation and aggression in people living with dementia using a novel multi-modal sensor network,

    S. S. Khan, T. Zhu, B. Ye, A. Mihailidis, A. Iaboni, K. Newman, A. H. Wang, and L. S. Martin, “Daad: A framework for detecting agitation and aggression in people living with dementia using a novel multi-modal sensor network,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Agitation detection in people living with dementia using multimodal sensors,

    S. S. Khan, S. Spasojevic, J. Nogas, B. Ye, A. Mihailidis, A. Iaboni, A. Wang, L. S. Martin, and K. Newman, “Agitation detection in people living with dementia using multimodal sensors,” in 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biolo...

    2019

  22. [30]

    A pilot study to detect agitation in people living with dementia using multi-modal sensors,

    S. Spasojevic, J. Nogas, A. Iaboni, B. Ye, A. Mihailidis, A. Wang, S. J. Li, L. S. Martin, K. Newman, and S. S. Khan, “A pilot study to detect agitation in people living with dementia using multi-modal sensors,”Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 342...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Undersampling and cumulative class re-decision methods to improve detection of agitation in people with dementia,

    Z. Meng, A. Iaboni, B. Ye, K. Newman, A. Mihailidis, Z. Deng, and S. S. Khan, “Undersampling and cumulative class re-decision methods to improve detection of agitation in people with dementia,”Biomedical Engineering Letters, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 69–78, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Dave: detecting agitated vocal events,

    A. Salekin, H. Wang, K. Williams, and J. Stankovic, “Dave: detecting agitated vocal events,” in2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE). IEEE, 2017, pp. 157–166

    2017

  25. [33]

    Semi- supervised learning for identifying the likelihood of agitation in people with de- mentia,

    R. Rezvani, S. Kouchaki, R. Nilforooshan, D. J. Sharp, and P. Barnaghi, “Semi- supervised learning for identifying the likelihood of agitation in people with de- mentia,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10398, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Leveraging self-training and variational autoencoder for agitation detection in people with dementia using wearable sensors,

    A. Badawi, S. Elmoghazy, S. Choudhury, K. Elgazzar, and A. Burhan, “Leveraging self-training and variational autoencoder for agitation detection in people with dementia using wearable sensors,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19254, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Prediction of dementia-related agitation using multivariate ambient environmental time-series data,

    N. Homdee, “Prediction of dementia-related agitation using multivariate ambient environmental time-series data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07237, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sundowning in dementia: clinical relevance, patho- physiological determinants, and therapeutic approaches,

    M. Canevelli, M. Valletta, A. Trebbastoni, G. Sarli, F. D’Antonio, L. Tariciotti, C. De Lena, and G. Bruno, “Sundowning in dementia: clinical relevance, patho- physiological determinants, and therapeutic approaches,” Frontiers in medicine, vol. 3, p. 73, 2016. 16 Abedi et al

    2016

  29. [37]

    The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation,

    P. Madley-Dowd, R. Hughes, K. Tilling, and J. Heron, “The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation,”Journal of clinical epidemiology, vol. 110, pp. 63–73, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Junaid, T

    K. Junaid, T. Kiran, M. Gupta, K. Kishore, and S. Siwatch, “How much miss- ing data is too much to impute for longitudinal health indicators? a preliminary guideline for the choice of the extent of missing proportion to impute with multiple imputation by chained equations,”Pop...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Rak-Areekul, Y

    T. Rak-Areekul, Y. Likijaroen, A. Hiransuthikul, K. Booncharoen, and Y. Saru- tikriangkri, “Prevalence of people living with dementia with cyclic temporal pattern of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in a tertiary memory clinic: A descriptive diary-based study,...

    2024

  32. [40]

    “sundowning

    D. Bachman and P. Rabins, ““sundowning” and other temporally associated agi- tation states in dementia patients,”Annu. Rev. Med., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 499–511, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Temporal patterns of agitation in dementia,

    J. Cohen-Mansfield, “Temporal patterns of agitation in dementia,”The American journal of geriatric psychiatry, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 395–405, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Unsupervised deep learning to detect agitation from videos in people with dementia,

    S. S. Khan, P. K. Mishra, N. Javed, B. Ye, K. Newman, A. Mihailidis, and A. Iaboni, “Unsupervised deep learning to detect agitation from videos in people with dementia,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 10349–10358, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model,

    N. Hollmann, S. Müller, L. Purucker, A. Krishnakumar, M. Körfer, S. B. Hoo, R. T. Schirrmeister, and F. Hutter, “Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model,”Nature, vol. 637, no. 8045, pp. 319–326, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine,

    J. H. Friedman, “Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine,” Annals of statistics, pp. 1189–1232, 2001

    2001

  37. [45]

    Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,

    G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley, T. Wang, W. Chen, W. Ma, Q. Ye, and T.-Y. Liu, “Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Comparison of naive bayes, random for- est, decision tree, support vector machines, and logistic regression classifiers for text reviews classification,

    T. Pranckevičius and V. Marcinkevičius, “Comparison of naive bayes, random for- est, decision tree, support vector machines, and logistic regression classifiers for text reviews classification,”Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 221, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Rocket:exceptionallyfastandaccurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,

    A.Dempster,F.Petitjean,andG.I.Webb,“Rocket:exceptionallyfastandaccurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,”Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1454–1495, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    One-class classification with node embedding type fea- tures,

    A. Ahmad and S. Khan, “One-class classification with node embedding type fea- tures,” Information Sciences, p. 122204, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples,

    Y. Cui, M. Jia, T.-Y. Lin, Y. Song, and S. Belongie, “Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 9268–9277

    2019

  43. [51]

    Smote: syn- thetic minority over-sampling technique,

    N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: syn- thetic minority over-sampling technique,”Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 16, pp. 321–357, 2002

    2002

  44. [52]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predic- tions,

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predic- tions,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.