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 35 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Early and accurate diagnosis of dementia is essential to improving patient outcomes and reducing societal burden. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is widely used to assess cognitive function, yet traditional statistical and machine learning approaches often face limitations in capturing nonlinear interactions and subtle decline patterns. This study developed a novel deep learning-based dementia prediction model using MMSE data collected from domestic clinical settings and compared its performance with traditional machine learning models. A notable strength of this work lies in its use of item-level MMSE features combined with explainable AI (SHAP analysis), enabling both high predictive accuracy and clinical interpretability-an advancement over prior approaches that primarily relied on total scores or linear modeling. Data from 164 participants, classified into cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia groups, were analyzed. Individual MMSE items and total scores were used as input features, and the dataset was divided into training and validation sets (8:2 split). A fully connected neural network with regularization techniques was constructed and evaluated alongside Random Forest and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, F1-score, confusion matrices, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The deep learning model achieved the highest performance (accuracy 0.90, F1-score 0.90), surpassing Random Forest (0.86) and SVM (0.82). SHAP analysis identified Q11 (immediate memory), Q12 (calculation), and Q17 (drawing shapes) as the most influential variables, aligning with clinical diagnostic practices. These findings suggest that deep learning not only enhances predictive accuracy but also offers interpretable insights aligned with clinical reasoning, underscoring its potential utility as a reliable tool for early dementia diagnosis. However, the study is limited by the use of data from a single clinical site with a relatively small sample size, which may restrict generalizability. Future research should validate the model using larger, multi-institutional, and multimodal datasets to strengthen clinical applicability and robustness.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study built a deep learning model using individual MMSE items to predict dementia and compared it with traditional machine learning models. It is a diagnostic prediction tool and does not address treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 35/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 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 0 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 35 of 100.35 of 100 points earned65 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Life)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Life: journal h-index 109 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” 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 / 4 164 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 0.6× 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 0 / 4 Last-listed author Jin-Hyoung Jeong: h-index 4 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Konyang University: institution h-index 141 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41157217)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 35 / 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

Jung, Y., Park, Y., Jo, J.-H., & Jeong, J.-H. (2025). MMSE-Based Dementia Prediction: Deep vs. Traditional Models. Life. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15101544

Vancouver

Jung Y, Park Y, Jo J.-H, Jeong J.-H. MMSE-Based Dementia Prediction: Deep vs. Traditional Models. Life. 2025. doi:10.3390/life15101544. PMID: 41157217.

BibTeX

@article{jung2025-41157217,
  author  = {Jung, Yuyeon and Park, Yeji and Jo, Jae-Hyun and Jeong, Jin-Hyoung},
  title   = {{MMSE-Based Dementia Prediction: Deep vs. Traditional Models}},
  journal = {Life},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.3390/life15101544},
  pmid    = {41157217},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/life15101544}
}

Studies this one cites

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

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

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 Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →