Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The dynamics of Alzheimer’s disease spread in aging groups of population are described using an Inflow-Outflow Model. This article presents the results of a retrospective forecast of non-stationary dynamics for key indicators of the spreading process, based on constructing linear trends of the stochastic rates of change in the integral volumes of inflow and outflow. The novelty of the proposed methodology is threefold: (1) it introduces a novel approach to modeling non-stationary time series for non-communicable diseases by shifting the focus to the stochastic dynamics of accumulated case volumes rather than volatile annual figures; (2) it identifies and operationalizes for forecasting the property of a monotonic decrease in the rates of the integral inflows and outflows within the prevalence process; and (3) it develops and tests a practical forecasting technique based on extrapolating linear trends of these rates. To demonstrate the model’s effective- ness, sample retrospective 10-years forecasts developed in 2005, 2010, and 2015 are presented for the World and some regions. The MAPE values for 10-years forecasting windows belongs to the interval [0.23%;2.73%], and MAPE values are in the interval [0.08%;0.75%]. The article also provides a long-term projection of disease prevalence to 2050 using a model-based forecasting approach.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lezhnina, E. A., Zakharov, V. V., & Kalinin, P. (2026). Retrospective Forecasting and Long-Term Projection of Alzheimer’s Disease Spreading. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10193506/v1
Vancouver
Lezhnina EA, Zakharov VV, Kalinin P. Retrospective Forecasting and Long-Term Projection of Alzheimer’s Disease Spreading. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10193506/v1.
BibTeX
@article{lezhnina2026-27091a4b,
author = {Lezhnina, E. A. and Zakharov, V. V. and Kalinin, P.},
title = {{Retrospective Forecasting and Long-Term Projection of Alzheimer’s Disease Spreading}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10193506/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10193506/v1}
}
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
- This article presents the results of a retrospective forecast of non-stationary dynamics for key indicators of the spreading process, based on constructing linear trends of the stochastic rates of change in the integral volumes of inflow and outflow.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Effect size0.23%; 2.73%; 0.08%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 24 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. 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 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 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| 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 | 15 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in How common it is
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.