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 53 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

We do not hold a plain-English summary of this study yet. Use the links to the original below for its abstract and findings.

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence left out, no data; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 7 of 7; Citations per year 5 of 5; Impact for its field and year 6 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 4 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 50 of the 95 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.50 of the 95 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence, so that was left out: it earned 50 of the 95 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Machine Learning)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Machine Learning: journal h-index 248 (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 — / 5 No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 / 7 Cited 132,539 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 5 / 5 4,908.9 citations a year over 27 year(s) since 2001
Impact for its field and year 6 / 6 Cited 70.4× 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 4 / 4 Cited 47,863 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Leo Breiman: h-index 57 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of California, Berkeley: institution h-index 2,012 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 50 / 95 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 50 of the 95 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 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

Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324

Vancouver

Breiman L. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 2001. doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324.

BibTeX

@article{breiman2001-85920d24,
  author  = {Breiman, Leo},
  title   = {{Random Forests}},
  journal = {Machine Learning},
  year    = {2001},
  doi     = {10.1023/a:1010933404324},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →