Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898411›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024

Predictive models of Alzheimer's disease dementia risk in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Xiaotong Wang, Shi Zhou, Niansi Ye, Yucan Li, Pengjun Zhou, Gao Chen, Hui Hu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The value of machine learning models in differentiating alzheimer's disease from Moderate-to-Severe cerebral small vessel disease.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

7 authors.

Xiaotong WangCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Shi ZhouCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Niansi YeCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Yucan LiCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Pengjun ZhouCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Gao ChenCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Hui HuCollege of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China. zhongyi90@163.com.

Funding

The National Natural Science Fund 81973921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMild cognitive impairment has received widespread attention as a high-risk population for Alzheimer's disease, and many studies have developed or validated predictive models to assess it. However, the performance of the model development remains unknown.

objectiveThe objective of this review was to provide an overview of prediction models for the risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.

methodPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and MEDLINE were systematically searched up to October 19, 2023. We included cohort studies in which risk prediction models for Alzheimer's disease dementia in older adults with mild cognitive impairment were developed or validated. The Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was employed to assess model bias and applicability. Random-effects models combined model AUCs and calculated (approximate) 95% prediction intervals for estimations. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I

resultsThe analysis included 16 studies involving 9290 participants. Frequency analysis of predictors showed that 14 appeared at least twice and more, with age, functional activities questionnaire, and Mini-mental State Examination scores of cognitive functioning being the most common predictors. From the studies, only two models were externally validated. Eleven studies ultimately used machine learning, and four used traditional modelling methods. However, we found that in many of the studies, there were problems with insufficient sample sizes, missing important methodological information, lack of model presentation, and all of the models were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The average AUC of the 15 best-developed predictive models was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.90). DISCUSSION: Most published predictive modelling studies are deficient in rigour, resulting in a high risk of bias. Upcoming research should concentrate on enhancing methodological rigour and conducting external validation of models predicting Alzheimer's disease dementia. We also emphasize the importance of following the scientific method and transparent reporting to improve the accuracy, generalizability and reproducibility of study results. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023468780).

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionAgedHumansRisk AssessmentAlzheimer’s diseaseDementiaElderlyMild cognitive impairmentPredictive modelSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38898411
PMCPMC11188292

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.