ReviewBrain communications2021
Machine learning for the life-time risk prediction of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.
Review in Brain communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Genetics- and Molecular-Pathway-Based Machine Learning Models for Neurological Disorder Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Integrative machine learning approach to risk prediction for dementia and Alzheimer's disease.GeroScience · 2026Article
- An integrated lifestyle-, genetic- and metabolomics-based prediction model for mild cognitive aging in the HCHS/SOL.NPJ dementia · 2026Article
- Decoding the genomic symphony: unravelling brain disorders through data integration and machine learning.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Review
- A machine learning framework for classifying dementia risk in mild cognitive impairment: evidence from a Korean genome-wide association study cohort.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessment of Lifetime Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Move Forward.Current cardiology reviews · 2024Review
- The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative in the era of Alzheimer's disease treatment: A review of ADNI studies from 2021 to 2022.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Review
- Evaluating the Classification Accuracy of Expression Quantitative Trait Loci Calculated Polygenic Risk Scores in Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Predicting the Risk of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment Using a Semi-Competing Risk Approach.Informatics (MDPI) · 2023Article
- Harnessing the potential of machine learning and artificial intelligence for dementia research.Brain informatics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder and the most common form of dementia. Early diagnosis may assist interventions to delay onset and reduce the progression rate of the disease. We systematically reviewed the use of machine learning algorithms for predicting Alzheimer's disease using single nucleotide polymorphisms and instances where these were combined with other types of data. We evaluated the ability of machine learning models to distinguish between controls and cases, while also assessing their implementation and potential biases. Articles published between December 2009 and June 2020 were collected using Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar. These were systematically screened for inclusion leading to a final set of 12 publications. Eighty-five per cent of the included studies used the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. In studies which reported area under the curve, discrimination varied (0.49-0.97). However, more than half of the included manuscripts used other forms of measurement, such as accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Model calibration statistics were also found to be reported inconsistently across all studies. The most frequent limitation in the assessed studies was sample size, with the total number of participants often numbering less than a thousand, whilst the number of predictors usually ran into the many thousands. In addition, key steps in model implementation and validation were often not performed or unreported, making it difficult to assess the capability of machine learning models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.