ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Advancing dementia identification using machine learning and real-world sequential health data.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Timely identification of dementia remains a major clinical challenge globally, with many cases being unrecognized. This study evaluated whether using machine learning models with routinely collected health data can support dementia case finding. Method: De-identified datasets were used to create a nested case-control of 8195 individuals with dementia and 8195 matched controls. Four models incorporating both cross-sectional and longitudinal features were developed and tested. Results: The best-performing model achieved an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.87), with sensitivity of 73.3% (95% CI: 72.3-74.2) and specificity of 87.5% (95% CI: 86.7-88.2). Key predictors included time-stamped International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision diagnostic codes, health-care use, referral to aged residential care, and hospital delirium assessments. Discussion: A unique feature was the inclusion of "timestamp data" that allowed us to assess the longitudinal changes which may have improved performance of the model. These findings demonstrate the potential for using machine learning with routine health data to enhance early dementia detection. Highlights: Machine learning models using routine health data in a real-world setting in New Zealand had good accuracy for identification of dementia (area under the curve 0.86, sensitivity 73.3%, and specificity 87.5%).Longitudinal sequential "timestamp" data is a unique feature that improved the performance of machine learning models for dementia case finding.Key predictors included International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes, health-care use, referrals to aged residential care, and positive delirium scores.
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.