ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Machine learning-based prediction of mild cognitive impairment among individuals with normal cognitive function.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning applications in vascular neuroimaging for the diagnosis and prognosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Pooled it
- AI-assisted screening for mild cognitive impairment using routine EHR data: a Gradient Boosting approach.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies mainly focused on risk factors in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. The aim of the study was to provide basis for preventing MCI in cognitive normal populations. Methods: The data came from a longitudinal retrospective study involving individuals with brain magnetic resonance imaging scans, clinical visits, and cognitive assessment with interval of more than 3 years. Multiple machine-learning technologies, including random forest, support vector machine, logistic regression, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and naïve Bayes, were used to establish a prediction model of a future risk of MCI through a combination of clinical and image variables. Results: Among these machine learning models; eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) was the best classification model. The classification accuracy of clinical variables was 65.90%, of image variables was 79.54%, of a combination of clinical and image variables was 94.32%. The best result of the combination was an accuracy of 94.32%, a precision of 96.21%, and a recall of 93.08%. XGB with a combination of clinical and image variables had a potential prospect for the risk prediction of MCI. From clinical perspective, the degree of white matter hyperintensity (WMH), especially in the frontal lobe, and the control of systolic blood pressure (SBP) were the most important risk factor for the development of MCI. Conclusion: The best MCI classification results came from the XGB model with a combination of both clinical and imaging variables. The degree of WMH in the frontal lobe and SBP control were the most important variables in predicting MCI.
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.