Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41967052›Full record

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.

Alicia Lu, Velandai Srikanth, Sarah Westworth, Yue-Guang Baey, Chris Moran, Richard Beare, Kristy Siostrom, Nadine Andrew, Taya Collyer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alicia LuNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0009-0001-8096-0276
Velandai SrikanthNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Sarah WestworthNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Yue-Guang BaeyAged Care Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia.
Chris MoranNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Richard BeareNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Kristy SiostromNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Nadine AndrewNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Taya CollyerNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government Research Training ProgramMonash University
6 · The paper itself

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

DementiaElectronic Health RecordsModels, StatisticalBiasHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning Modelsdementiadiagnosiselectronic health recordsmachine learningpredictive learning models

Identifiers

PMID41967052
PMCPMC13197185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.