ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2026
The AHEPA EEG benchmark: setting the standard for machine learning in dementia diagnosis, a scoping review.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate and reproducible electroencephalography (EEG)-based classification of dementia remains a key challenge in computational neurodiagnostics. The open-access AHEPA dataset has become the most commonly used benchmark for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) classification, yet reported results vary widely due to methodological inconsistencies. This study presents the first systematic and quantitative benchmark review of all published machine learning approaches applied to the AHEPA dataset. Forty-six studies were reviewed and stratified into three validity tiers, with Validity 1 representing the highest methodological rigor and Validity 3 the lowest.According to their evaluation rigor: (1) subject-level validation (e.g., Leave-One-Subject-Out cross-validation, LOSO-CV), (2) subject-level train/test splits, and (3) epoch-level k-fold cross-validation. Performance metrics were normalized across classification problems. The analysis revealed that methodological rigor is inversely correlated with reported accuracy: for AD versus Cognitively Normal controls, mean accuracy decreased from 90.81% overall to 82.11% in Validity-1 studies; for FTD versus controls, accuracy dropped from 86.53% to 75.18%. Linear regression analyses demonstrated that weaker validation protocols were associated with systematic increases of 7-10% points in reported accuracy, explaining more than half of the observed performance variance. Deep and hybrid models reported the highest nominal accuracies, but under proper validation, traditional algorithms performed comparably, indicating that data leakage often drives apparent improvements. The review also highlights the lack of cross-configuration generalization and the urgent need for adaptive, montage-independent methodologies. Overall, this benchmark establishes the first reproducible reference framework for EEG-based dementia classification on the AHEPA dataset, providing quantitative baselines and validity criteria against which all future studies should be evaluated.
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.