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 48 out of 100. Long-term cohort studies

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Background: Cognitive decline has become a common sign of mental ability loss in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, early detection is difficult because traditional diagnostic tools such as brain scans are expensive, time-consuming, and depend on experts. Existing machine learning models show high prediction scores; however, they are uninterpretable because their logic is hidden, which limits trust. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a reliable and interpretable tool named COGNEUTEST, a clinical support cognitive decline assessment system. Methods This study utilized a tuned Random Forest classification model trained on comprehensive clinical features from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) cohort dataset. This framework focuses on the top 26 features, including patient demographics, medical conditions, lifestyle, and influential cognitive variables, to predict the objective cognitive status results. To ensure clinical accountability, a state-of-the-art SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) technique was integrated to interpret each contribution. Results Experimental findings proved that tuned Random Forest showed the highest performance in identifying three cognitive classes, Normal Cognition, MCI and Alzheimer’s disease dementia, on the NACC dataset, which achieved 86.05% accuracy and an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.9534. The system efficiently runs machine learning predictions and PDF report creation in an average of 13 s, and database lookups require less than 1 s. Conclusions This study contributes to the healthcare field by demonstrating the potential of providing a fast, transparent, and affordable assessment system that is accessible to low-income populations and clinics with limited budget. Limitations include reliance on a single cohort dataset and dependence on informant availability for Functional Activity Questionnaire (FAQ) variables. Future work should involve testing the model on other databases, exploring some deep learning models, and developing a separate model for cases in which a patient can perform self-testing at home.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 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 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (F1000Res)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 28 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

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

Tan, Y. S., & Lew, S. L. (2026). Predictive Models for Cognitive Decline Assessment. F1000Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.185879.1

Vancouver

Tan YS, Lew SL. Predictive Models for Cognitive Decline Assessment. F1000Res. 2026. doi:10.12688/f1000research.185879.1.

BibTeX

@article{tan2026-3b7537e3,
  author  = {Tan, Y. S. and Lew, S. L.},
  title   = {{Predictive Models for Cognitive Decline Assessment}},
  journal = {F1000Res},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.12688/f1000research.185879.1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.185879.1}
}

Related studies in Long-term cohort studies

Similar studies

More on Long-term cohort studies

See all studies in Long-term cohort studies →