ArticleBrain communications2025
Predicting incident dementia in community-dwelling older adults using primary and secondary care data from electronic health records.
Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a successful aging prediction model for older adults in China based on health ecology theory.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting risk of future dementia is essential for primary prevention strategies, particularly in the era of novel immunotherapies. However, few studies have developed population-level prediction models using existing routine healthcare data. In this longitudinal retrospective cohort study, we predicted incident dementia using primary and secondary care health records at 5, 10 and 13 years in 144 113 Scottish older adults who were dementia-free prior to 1st April 2009. Gradient-boosting (XGBoost) prediction models were trained on two feature subsets: data-driven (using all 171 extracted variables) and clinically supervised (22 curated variables). We used a random-stratified internal validation set to rank top predictors in each model, assessing performance stratified by age and socioeconomic deprivation. Predictions were stratified into 10 equally sized risk deciles and ranked by response rate. Over 13 years of follow-up, 11 143 (8%) patients developed dementia. The data-driven models achieved marginally better precision-recall area-under-the-curve scores of 0.18, 0.26 and 0.30 compared to clinically supervised models with scores of 0.17, 0.27 and 0.29 for incident dementia at 5, 10 and 13 years, respectively. The clinically supervised model achieved comparable specificity 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.88] and sensitivity (0.55, 95% CI 0.53-0.57) to the data-driven model for prediction at 13 years. The most important model features were age, deprivation and frailty, measured by a modified electronic frailty index excluding known cognitive deficits. Model precision was consistent across socioeconomic deprivation quintiles but lower in younger-onset (<70 years) dementia cases. At 13 years, dementia was diagnosed in 32% of the population classified as highest risk with 40% of individuals in this group below the age of 80. Personalized estimates of future dementia risk from routinely collected healthcare data could influence risk factor modification and help to target brain imaging and novel immunotherapies in selected individuals with pre-symptomatic disease.
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.