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. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Dementia research often suffers from methodological pitfalls such as label-information and subject-information leakages. Leveraging the longitudinal OASIS-2 cohort, this study identifies and addresses three critical gaps in prior research: (i) inclusion of Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) in predictor sets, risking target leakage and inflated performance estimates; (ii) inappropriate splitting strategies for longitudinal data, risking information leakage; and (iii) inadequate incorporation of temporal dynamics in classification models. To address these, CDR was excluded from input features to ensure that model performance reflects genuine predictive signals from demographic and neuroimaging data. A group-aware data-splitting strategy was implemented to maintain longitudinal data integrity and prevent leakage across training and test sets. Several engineered temporal features were also introduced to evaluate their impact on classification performance. To develop classifiers, a kernel-based classifier (support vector classifier, SVC), boosting ensembles (CatBoost, LightGBM), and bagging ensembles (Random Forest, Extra Trees), were employed. Furthermore, Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, including permutation importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), were utilized to interpret predictions of the best models and identify feature contributions. SVC and LightGBM (LGBM), trained on a combined feature set of original and engineered features, outperformed others. SVC achieved higher precision (73.3%) and discriminative power (ROC AUC 89.1%), while LightGBM provided better recall (69.7%) and accuracy (69.7%). XAI analyses revealed that (i) Mini-Mental State Examination and atlas-scaling-factor dynamics dominated SVC decisions, while (ii) education, age, and estimated total intracranial volume were critical for LGBM predictions. A sex-based analysis showed that both SVC and LGBM models performed better among females, which may indicate potential biases in the models. Collectively, this study establishes a transparent benchmark for leakage-free dementia status classification, demonstrating that realistic predictive performance is markedly lower once leakage is eliminated. This benchmark, together with interpretable analyses, provides a reference point for developing more robust longitudinal dementia models.

Key findings

Why it matters

This work sets up a leakage-free benchmark for predicting dementia status over time using demographic and neuroimaging data, after excluding the Clinical Dementia Rating from the predictors. It is a methods-focused study and does not test any treatment, prevention 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 0 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 1 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 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 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 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 longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and 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 (PLOS Digital Health)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 PLOS Digital Health: journal h-index 54 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same 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 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 1 / 7 Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 1 / 5 1.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 9.5× 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 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Roger C Tam holds only 6 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 1 / 3 University of British Columbia: institution h-index 1,424 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42149898)
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).

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

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.

APA 7th

Ghiasi, M. M., Falck, R. S., Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L., & Tam, R. C. (2026). Explainable machine learning for predicting longitudinal dementia status: Establishing a leakage-free benchmark. PLOS Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001409

Vancouver

Ghiasi MM, Falck RS, Liu-Ambrose TYL, Tam RC. Explainable machine learning for predicting longitudinal dementia status: Establishing a leakage-free benchmark. PLOS Digital Health. 2026. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001409. PMID: 42149898.

BibTeX

@article{ghiasi2026-42149898,
  author  = {Ghiasi, Mohammad Mahdi and Falck, Ryan S. and Liu-Ambrose, Teresa Y L and Tam, Roger C},
  title   = {{Explainable machine learning for predicting longitudinal dementia status: Establishing a leakage-free benchmark}},
  journal = {PLOS Digital Health},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pdig.0001409},
  pmid    = {42149898},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001409}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →