MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414452943 · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108124

Systematic Review of Dementia Risk Screening Tools in Primary Care Settings

2025· article· en· W4414452943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana Matovic, Xiaojing Lei, Gabrielle K. Picard, Malene Ahern, Olivia Maurice, Simon Willcock, Viviana M. Wuthrich

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Future FundUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsDementiaPrimary careMEDLINEPreventive carePrimary health carePrimary preventionRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This preregistered (PROSPERO identification 272529) systematic review analyzed the reliability, validity, acceptability, and feasibility of methods to screen and identify primary care patients at increased risk for dementia. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were studies of dementia risk screening methods applied or designed for use in primary care or derived or validated with primary care data for use with community-dwelling adults (aged ≥18 years) without dementia/cognitive impairment. Articles were limited to full-text peer-reviewed studies published in English. Searches were conducted from database inception until September 21, 2021/September 22, 2021 (updated on September 4, 2022 and September 16, 2024) in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and COCHRANE with backwards snowballing. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials-V2, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist. RESULTS: Eleven validated tools and scores were investigated in 34 studies. Participant numbers ranged from 100 to 94,000,000. Tools and scores were used or validated in 1 (6 tools) to 13 studies (1 tool). Most studies were from higher-income countries. Risk of bias was low in most studies. C-statistics were most commonly used (range=0.52-0.86). Tools and scores generally had acceptable prediction but performed poorly in samples differing from the derivation sample. The Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia and Lifestyle for Brain Health demonstrated acceptable validity in midlife samples, and the Lifestyle for Brain Health demonstrated acceptable validity in older samples (aged <80 years). DISCUSSION: The Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia and Lifestyle for Brain Health are recommended for midlife and older adults aged <80 years, but further research is needed for adults aged ≥80 years and lower-middle income countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.011
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207