Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34805994›Full record

ReviewBrain communications2021

Machine learning for the life-time risk prediction of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.

Thomas W Rowe, Ioanna K Katzourou, Joshua O Stevenson-Hoare, Matthew R Bracher-Smith, Dobril K Ivanov, Valentina Escott-Price

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thomas W RoweUK Dementia Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4743-6293
Ioanna K KatzourouUK Dementia Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Joshua O Stevenson-HoareUK Dementia Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Matthew R Bracher-SmithDivision of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK.
Dobril K IvanovUK Dementia Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Valentina Escott-PriceUK Dementia Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-5483

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801418Medical Research Council MR/L010305/1Medical Research Council MR/L023784/2Medical Research Council MR/P005748/1Medical Research Council MR/T033371/1Medical Research Council MR/T04604X/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Alzheimer’s diseaseAUCEPVmachine learningSNPs

Identifiers

PMID34805994
PMCPMC8598986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.