SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Electroencephalography in Subjective Cognitive Decline and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review of Biomarkers, Classification, and Prognostic Evidence.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are heterogeneous clinical states that may represent early or at-risk stages of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other dementias in some individuals. Improved characterization and risk stratification in these populations may facilitate timely evaluation and intervention. Electroencephalography (EEG), a noninvasive, cost-effective neurophysiological technique with high temporal resolution, holds significant potential for elucidating neural mechanisms and providing candidate neurophysiological markers associated with SCD and MCI. Objective: The study aims to systematically synthesize evidence on group-level EEG biomarkers, EEG-based classification models, the evaluation of EEG in screening or diagnostic pathways, and EEG-based prediction of progression in SCD and MCI. Methods: A search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via Ovid), Scopus, Wanfang Data, CQVIP, Yiigle, and CNKI databases to include reports published in English or Chinese, which reported group-level EEG differences, EEG-based classification, screening or diagnostic evaluations, or prognostic outcomes in SCD and MCI. A total of 2 independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts. Prediction-model reports were assessed using PROBAST+AI (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Applicability Assessment for AI), prognostic-factor reports using QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies), and other observational reports using design-specific Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: A total of 20 reports were included, representing a maximum of 3853 confirmed-deduplicated participants after correction of a nested subsample and removal of confirmed duplicate participants across reports, of whom 2927 diagnosed with SCD/MCI/AD or other dementias. Of these, 10 reports were assessed as prediction or AI model reports, 9 as nondiagnostic observational reports, and 1 as a prognostic-factor study. Although potentially informative between-group EEG differences and preliminary model performance were reported, no conventional diagnostic test-accuracy study was identified. The certainty of evidence was very low across all 4 evidence bodies. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that EEG is a promising noninvasive modality for characterizing neurophysiological alterations associated with SCD and MCI. EEG-based classification and prognostic models have also shown encouraging preliminary performance. However, the current evidence is more supportive of biomarker discovery and model development than of established clinical screening or diagnosis. Translation into routine practice will require prospective reports with standardized EEG procedures, representative clinical populations, prespecified thresholds, participant-level data separation, and independent external validation. These findings provide a basis for evaluating EEG as a potential adjunctive or triage tool in future clinical pathways.
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.