Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

The study included 685 patients who underwent MDS-cognitive and 3,630 patients assessed using OASIS. Overall, LLMs demonstrated strong cross-dataset generalizability. Among them, Llama-3.3-70B achieved the highest F1-score (66.31%) in OASIS assessments, while QWEN2.5-72B performed best in MDS (45.23%). The larger LLMs provided significant performance gains, whereas the CoT and summary strategies enhanced interpretability but did not consistently improve accuracy. This may be due to the models' limited understanding of clinical text, making precise information extraction and reasoning challenging. This study highlights the potential of LLMs in predicting cognitive function for dementia patients using EHRs. Larger LLMs showed superior performance, while the CoT and summary strategies improved interpretability but may slightly impair performance. The results highlight the necessity for further adoption and optimization of LLM modeling and reasoning strategies to better handle clinical text, minimizing hallucinations and improving reliability. Integrating LLMs into cognitive assessment workflows could enhance efficiency and accessibility, supporting more effective dementia care and management.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Wu, J., Wyss, R., Lin, J. C. H., & Yang, J. (2025). Cognitive Assessment of Dementia Patients Using Large Language Models. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70858_103769

Vancouver

Wu J, Wyss R, Lin JCH, Yang J. Cognitive Assessment of Dementia Patients Using Large Language Models. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz70858_103769. PMID: 41449636.

BibTeX

@article{wu2025-41449636,
  author  = {Wu, Jiageng and Wyss, Richard and Lin, Josh C. H. and Yang, Jie},
  title   = {{Cognitive Assessment of Dementia Patients Using Large Language Models}},
  journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz70858_103769},
  pmid    = {41449636},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70858_103769}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study found that large language models could predict cognitive function for dementia patients from electronic health records, with larger models performing better, though accuracy was limited and reasoning strategies did not consistently improve it. The authors call for further optimisation to reduce hallucinations; it concerns assessment, not treatment or cure.

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 1 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 48 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.48 of the 96 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 685 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 1 / 7 Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 1 / 6 Cited 0.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Jie Yang holds only 4 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Brigham and Women's Hospital: institution h-index 1,995 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41449636)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 48 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →