SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Electronic health record-based prediction models for dementia detection: a systematic review of model performance and quality.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLeveraging routine electronic health records (EHR) for dementia detection is a growing field, but quality and clinical utility of existing models are unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate performance, methodological quality, and risk of bias of EHR-based dementia prediction models. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM from conception until July 2024. All studies and grey literature describing development or validation of probabilistic prediction models using EHR data for dementia detection were included. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST.
resultsFifty-six studies (434 prediction models, 155 external validations) were included. Most models were prognostic (66%), used US data (71%), relied solely on structured data, and 47 (11%) were externally validated. Modeled outcomes were extremely heterogeneous: gold-standard clinical criteria were used in 17 models (4%), with others reliant on diagnostic codes for case ascertainment. Discriminative metrics were frequently reported (82% of models), but calibration was rarely assessed (16%). All models were judged high risk of bias, driven by poor outcome definition, inadequate handling of missing data, and potential overfitting. DISCUSSION: Our review highlights significant issues with methodological rigor and reporting transparency in existing EHR dementia prediction models. Ambiguous outcomes, flawed case ascertainment, and incomplete performance reporting, all limit clinical usefulness. Overall, model performance was difficult to assess and compare across studies due to incomplete reporting.
conclusionElectronic health record-based dementia prediction is still in its infancy. Methodological rigor and interdisciplinary collaboration are essential to meet clinical needs and achieve real-world impact.
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.