ArticlePloS one2025
Screening mild cognitive impairment using aspects of personal, social, and functional lifestyle: Machine Learning Approaches.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMild cognitive impairment (MCI) signals cognitive decline beyond normal aging and increases dementia risk. Early identification enables preventative interventions, yet many patients in primary care go undetected. This study examines whether machine learning (ML) models can predict MCI using routinely collected personal, social, and functional lifestyle factors and identifies the most important predictors.
methodsData from round 2 and 3 of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project was used, including 4,586 older adults with complete Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores. Predictors included demographics, childhood experiences, health behaviors, psychosocial measures, and functional difficulties. Eight ML models-including elastic net, multivariate adaptive regression splines, random forest, oblique random forest, boosted trees, decision trees, and a stacked ensemble-were trained and tuned using repeated cross-validation, with 20% of the dataset withheld for final testing. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC).
resultsMost models achieved good discrimination (AUROC > 0.8), with the stacked ensemble performing best (AUROC = 0.823; MCC = 0.462). The best individual model was logistic regression (AUROC = 0.818). Across models, key predictors of MCI included age, ethnicity, functional difficulties, social disconnectedness, and perceived stress. DISCUSSION: Logistic regression outperformed more complex machine learning models, providing the best combination of predictive accuracy and interpretability for identifying MCI. Across models, age, ethnicity, functional difficulties, social disconnectedness, and stress consistently emerged as key predictors, highlighting their central role in cognitive health. These findings suggest that psychosocial and functional measures can serve as practical indicators for those who need to be screened early for MCI, offering an opportunity for timely intervention and support. However, future work should include longitudinal data and clinical diagnoses to validate and refine these predictive tools.
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.