ArticleFrontiers in neurology
AI-assisted screening for mild cognitive impairment using routine EHR data: a Gradient Boosting approach.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Article
- An interpretable machine learning screening model for MoCA-defined possible mild cognitive impairment in rural Xinjiang: a preliminary framework for resource-limited primary care.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and internally validate a machine learning (ML) model that identifies older outpatients with MCI using routine electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of community outpatients aged ≥60 years in Zhejiang, China. Structured EHR predictors included demographics, comorbidities/medications, lifestyle, and visit patterns. The outcome was adjudicated MCI based on cognitive screening (MoCA plus supplemental tests). Supervised ML classifiers were compared using 10-fold cross-validation and an independent held-out test set; class imbalance was addressed with SMOTE. Performance was assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1 score. Results: The test set included ~640 patients (≈20% MCI). Gradient Boosting performed best: cross-validation mean AUC 0.855 (SD 0.031) and accuracy 0.862 (SD 0.013); test AUC 0.850, accuracy 0.833, and F1 0.402. At the default threshold, sensitivity was 0.286 and specificity 0.967 (PPV 0.679; NPV 0.847). Prioritizing sensitivity (~0.82) lowered specificity (~0.64). At a high-sensitivity threshold of 0.159, the model achieved a sensitivity of 0.802 with a specificity of 0.751 (PPV 0.441; NPV 0.939). Important predictors included older age, female sex, lower education, smaller family size, and higher depression scores. Conclusion: An ML model using routine outpatient EHR can discriminate MCI in older adults (AUC ≈ 0.85), supporting potential for automated, low-cost screening in primary care. Using the predicted probabilities generated in this analysis, we assessed calibration and conducted a decision-curve analysis. While the model shows good discrimination and calibration, external validation is still required to confirm clinical utility and refine operating thresholds.
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.