Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 212 references

The paper argues that the near-term future of cognitive healthcare lies in integration—fusing EEG, neuroimaging, blood and digital biomarkers, and lifestyle factors into longitudinally validated systems that connect early detection to perso

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:40 UTC pith:FZQHZPYS

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful cross-disciplinary map of a fast-moving field with a consistent validation-rigor lens; just make sure the sharpest anti-foundation-model claim gets corroborated before it becomes the takeaway. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28687 v1 pith:FZQHZPYS submitted 2026-07-30 cs.LG cs.AIcs.ET

Technological Advances in Detecting and Managing Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions

Mohammad Asif , Azizuddin Khan , Mohd Azam , Anurag Rajkumar Bombarde This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.ET
keywords cognitive impairmentdementiamild cognitive impairmentEEGblood biomarkersdigital biomarkersmachine learningexternal validation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Across EEG, MRI/PET, blood-based biomarkers, and digital tools, this review argues that the near-term future of cognitive healthcare will not be defined by any single breakthrough, but by integration: combining complementary signals into trustworthy, longitudinally validated systems that link early detection to personalized intervention. Its cautionary thesis is that many headline diagnostic accuracies—some above 95% or even 99%—come from small single-site datasets evaluated with subject-dependent cross-validation, and that performance drops substantially under subject- and site-independent validation. If correct, the field should redirect effort from single-modality accuracy competitions toward standardized, multimodal, externally validated frameworks. The review contributes a cross-disciplinary taxonomy, a methodological-rigor lens, and a five-tier screening framework connecting low-cost first-line tools to confirmatory blood and imaging tests.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that reliable progress in cognitive-impairment detection is uneven: plasma p-tau217 has reached clinical utility (with the first blood test cleared to aid Alzheimer's diagnosis in 2025), while deep-learning classifiers on EEG and MRI report near-ceiling accuracies that typically do not survive subject- and site-disjoint evaluation. The central discovery is that these two facts point the same direction—no single modality is sufficient, and the field's value lies in integration, not isolation. The review consolidates this into an integrative early-detection framework: tiered screening from population-scale digital tools and speech/wearable markers, throu

What carries the argument

Two devices carry the argument. The methodological-rigor lens names three evaluation designs—subject-dependent cross-validation (which leaks identity and inflates accuracy), subject-independent cross-validation, and external cross-site validation—and uses the contrast to temper every reported figure. The integrative early-detection framework is the constructive counterpart: a five-tier screening pathway (digital/wearable screening, risk stratification, blood biomarkers, confirmatory imaging/CSF, matched intervention) with longitudinal monitoring closing the loop, which is what integration means operationally.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's negative claim—that many reported accuracies are inflated and fail under subject- and site-disjoint evaluation—rests on a small set of critical sources and a narrative, judgment-based literature selection without formal screening counts, so if those sources are wrong or the selection unrepresentative, the review's main interpretive message loses its foundation.

What would settle it

Take a representative set of public EEG and MRI datasets, train the same models under subject- and site-disjoint splits, and compare the re-evaluated accuracies with the published headline figures; if they largely hold (within a few points), the inflation thesis collapses. Similarly, a large prospective multi-site trial showing that a single modality (e.g., a plasma biomarker alone) matches the accuracy of a multimodal fusion would weaken the integration thesis.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the validation critique is correct, reported single-dataset accuracies (e.g., 96.41% LSTM, 99.94% MRI) should be treated as upper bounds pending subject- and site-independent evaluation, and clinical deployment should require such evidence.
  • Plasma p-tau217 and the Aβ42/40 ratio are mature enough to serve as a primary-care triage layer, reserving PET and CSF for confirmation and reducing the cost of early detection.
  • Multidomain lifestyle programs, with up to about 45% of dementia potentially attributable to modifiable factors, become the natural intervention arm once early detection identifies at-risk individuals.
  • Multimodal fusion of EEG, imaging, blood, and digital markers generally improves sensitivity and specificity relative to any single stream, so integration is not just desirable but empirically supported.
  • Standardization, explainability, privacy-preserving federated learning, and subgroup-stratified fairness metrics are preconditions for translating these systems into routine care.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete testable extension of the review's logic: re-running leading EEG and MRI classifiers on public datasets under strictly subject- and site-disjoint splits, with a fixed evaluation protocol, would likely reorder the current accuracy ranking—a result that could be published as a benchmark and would directly test the paper's inflation claim.
  • If integration is the path, an economically testable prediction follows: multimodal digital phenotyping (wearables plus speech plus routine blood) will outperform any single sensor in real-world screening, which could be assessed in prospective cohort studies designed deliberately to compare single-modality and fused pipelines.
  • The paper's normative stance implies a funding shift: resources should flow to centralized benchmarking infrastructure and multi-site validation studies rather than to new single-cohort accuracy records.
  • The same subject-leakage hazard almost certainly affects speech/LLM, VR, and wearable-based assessments, so those younger fields have a chance to adopt rigorous validation early rather than repeat the EEG/MRI pattern.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative/critical review of technologies for detecting and managing cognitive impairment in older adults. It surveys EEG, MRI/PET, blood-based biomarkers, digital/wearable/VR/speech modalities, and AI/ML methods, and it contributes a cross-disciplinary taxonomy, a methodological-rigor lens emphasizing subject- and site-independent validation, a tiered early-detection framework, and comparison tables of detection methods, interventions, and risk/protective factors. Its central thesis is that many high reported accuracies come from small single-site datasets and that the field's near-term future lies in trustworthy, multimodal, longitudinally validated systems linking early detection to personalized intervention. The review is explicitly non-systematic (Section I-C), acknowledges its limitations (Section XI), and consistently hedges contested findings such as the benefit of anti-amyloid therapies and the 45% preventable-fraction estimate.

Significance. If its synthesis is accepted, the paper provides a useful orientation for the field: it consolidates a fragmented literature, makes a strong case for subject-independent and external multi-site evaluation, and proposes a practical tiered screening pathway (Fig. 4). The authors are commendably honest about the provisional nature of several sources and about the limitations of the narrative-review format. The main contributions—the taxonomy, the validation-rigor lens, and the comparison tables—are valuable to a broad ML/clinical readership. However, the paper's sharpest empirical claim, that EEG foundation models do not consistently outperform classical features under subject/site-disjoint evaluation, rests on a small set of sources, one of which is a non-peer-reviewed preprint. Because this claim is load-bearing for the central message, the manuscript's overall authority is currently conditional on an unverified result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.C; §XII; Table 6] The central negative claim about EEG foundation models—'general EEG foundation models do not consistently outperform well-engineered classical features for dementia decoding, and apparent gains can be inflated by dataset-identity confounds and subject-level data leakage'—is anchored to reference [88], a single-author arXiv preprint posted 27 Jul 2026, three days before this submission and explicitly labeled 'not peer reviewed' and 'provisional' in §XI. Reference [87] is a benchmark/scoping review and [42] documents the general single-site problem, but neither establishes the specific foundation-model failure. Since this claim appears in the abstract, conclusion, and Table 6 as an established result, the authors must either supply peer-reviewed or independently replicated evidence, or explicitly downgrade the statement to a preliminary, provisional observation. As written, the strength of
  2. [Table 6; EEG foundation-model row] Table 6 lists 'Self-supervised pre-training [11], [86]' and reports 'No consistent gain over classical features' with citations [87], [88]. This conflates two distinct things: [11] and [86] are original model-development papers, not stress-test evaluations, while [87] is a benchmark/scoping review and [88] is the provisional preprint. The row should separate 'reported performance in the original studies' from 'stress-test findings' and mark [88] as non-peer-reviewed directly in the table. As presented, a reader could reasonably infer that the negative result is an established, multi-source finding, which is not currently the case.
  3. [§I-C; §XI] The paper openly states that it is a narrative review without screening counts or a systematic search. This is acceptable, but the breadth of the empirical generalizations—especially cross-modal claims such as 'multimodal fusion generally improves sensitivity and specificity' and the EEG foundation-model negative result—is constrained by the authors' judgment-based selection. The conclusions would be more defensible if the most load-bearing claims were either systematically substantiated or framed as an interpretative research agenda rather than as evidence-based findings. At minimum, a more detailed disclosure of the search and selection process for the central claims would allow readers to judge representativeness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction; throughout] Several typographical and capitalization issues occur, e.g., 'Y et' at the start of the introduction, 'V ery', 'V alidation', 'V ariational', and 'Apple Watch and Similar Devices' in Table 1. A careful proofread is recommended.
  2. [§VIII.B; Table 2] The text states a 'roughly 15–20% lower dementia risk' for physical exercise, while Table 2 reports '∼14–21% lower risk'. These are not inconsistent, but aligning the ranges and citing the same source in both places would avoid confusion.
  3. [§III.C; Reference list] References [85], [86], and [88] are preprints and are labeled as such in the reference list, but they are not consistently flagged in the body text. Please mark them at first mention, particularly since the paper's methodological message emphasizes evidentiary standards.
  4. [Figure 5] The figure uses 'S1–S8' without defining the notation in the caption. A short explanation (e.g., 'S = subject') would make the figure self-contained.
  5. [Reference selection] Several references to the authors' own prior work in adjacent affective-computing contexts (e.g., [75], [76], [84], [138], [198]) are not essential to the review's argument. Trimming or clarifying their relevance would strengthen the perceived impartiality of the synthesis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the review's conclusions are grounded in external literature, and self-citations are peripheral rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a narrative review that derives no quantitative predictions from its own equations or fitted parameters. The central claims—e.g., that p-tau217 approaches CSF/PET accuracy, that anti-amyloid therapies have modest contested benefits, and that multidomain lifestyle programs show cognitive benefit—are attributed to external primary sources and trials. The methodological-rigor lens and the negative claim about EEG foundation models under subject/site-disjoint evaluation are explicitly anchored to external works: the comprehensive review [42], the AHEPA benchmark [87], and the stress-testing preprint [88], the latter being explicitly labeled as a provisional preprint in the Limitations section. The authors' self-citations ([75], [76], [84], [113], [138], [188], [193], [196]–[198]) support peripheral examples—adjacent affective EEG-decoding tasks, cross-cultural emotional-network comparisons, and related explainability/feature-engineering work—rather than the review's principal conclusions. No step reduces by construction to its inputs: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The reliance on an unreviewed preprint for the strongest empirical anchor is a legitimate evidence-quality concern, but it is not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

A review introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The central claims rest on (1) the fidelity of the cited literature, (2) representativeness of the authors' non-systematic selection, and (3) validity of a small set of critical stress-test and milestone sources. These are domain assumptions, not fitted quantities, and the paper discloses them incompletely (§XI covers selection but not the preprint-dependence of the foundation-model claim).

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Representativeness of the narrative literature selection: the authors' judgment-based inclusion captures the field's main trends.
    The paper states it is a narrative review without protocol-driven screening or counts (§I-C, §XI). Every synthetic conclusion inherits this premise; a biased selection would propagate into the conclusions.
  • domain assumption The critical sources [42], [87], [88] correctly characterize subject-/site-disjoint performance of EEG deep-learning and foundation models.
    The central cautionary claim depends on these; [88] is a single-author preprint posted 27 Jul 2026, three days before this manuscript's submission date.
  • domain assumption Clinical milestones (2024 revised AA criteria [9]; FDA clearance of the first plasma p-tau217/Aβ42 blood test [13]; POINTER results [14]; lecanemab/donanemab trial outcomes [6], [8]) are reported accurately.
    These anchor the claims that 'molecular biomarkers have advanced fastest' and the detect-then-act framing in §VII-E; they are external facts the review does not independently verify.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40137 in / 12405 out tokens · 119106 ms · 2026-08-03T00:40:08.004372+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As populations age, cognitive decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia is a defining health challenge of the coming decades, yet routine assessment often misses its earliest signs. This article critically synthesizes recent technological advances for detecting and managing cognitive impairment in older adults, spanning neurophysiological signals (chiefly electroencephalography, EEG), structural and molecular neuroimaging (MRI and amyloid/tau PET), blood-based biomarkers, and digital markers, integrated through artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL). Beyond summarizing, it contributes a cross-disciplinary taxonomy, a methodological-rigor lens foregrounding subject- and site-independent validation, an integrative early-detection framework linking tiered screening to intervention, and comparison tables of detection methods, interventions, and risk and protective factors. EEG markers (alpha/theta changes, P300 latency) and deep models (CNNs, LSTM/BiLSTM, transformers, self-supervised EEG foundation models) report strong accuracy, yet many rest on small, single-site datasets unlikely to survive rigorous external validation. Elsewhere, gains are tangible: plasma p-tau217 has reached clinical utility, with the first blood test cleared to aid Alzheimer's diagnosis in 2025; anti-amyloid therapies (lecanemab, donanemab) are approved despite modest, contested benefits; and multidomain lifestyle prevention has matured. Wearable, remote, speech, and virtual-reality tools enable continuous, ecologically valid monitoring, and multimodal fusion improves sensitivity and specificity. Barriers remain: standardization, explainability, data privacy, and equitable, externally validated deployment. The field's near-term promise lies in trustworthy, multimodal, longitudinally validated systems linking early detection to actionable, personalized care.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28687 by Anurag Rajkumar Bombarde, Azizuddin Khan, Mohammad Asif, Mohd Azam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

212 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    T. M. Rutkowski, T. Komendziński, and M. Otake-Matsuura, ‘‘Mild cognitive impairment prediction and cognitive score regression in the 16 VOLUME 11, 2023 elderly using eeg topological data analysis and machine learning with awareness assessed in affective reminiscent paradigm,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 15, p. 1294139, 2024. [Online]. Available...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    A. M. Alvi, S. Siuly, and H. Wang, ‘‘A long short-term memory based framework for early detection of mild cognitive impairment from eeg signals,’’IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational In- telligence, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 375–388, April 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Z. Li, M. Wu, C. Yin, Z. Wang, J. Wang, L. Chen, and W. Zhao, ‘‘Machine learning based on the eeg and structural mri can predict different stages of vascular cognitive impairment,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 16, p. 1364808, Apr 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2024.1364808

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    T. J. Alahmadi, A. U. Rahman, Z. A. Alhababi, S. Ali, and H. K. Alkah- tani, ‘‘Prediction of mild cognitive impairment using eeg signal and bilstm network,’’Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 025028, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    M. Asif, P . Choudhary, and A. A. Dandawate, ‘‘Computational neuroscience: Recent advancement,’’ inSynaptic Plasticity in Neurodegenerative Disorders. CRC Press, 2024, pp. 159–190. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003464648-10

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003464648-10 2024

  6. [6]

    C. H. van Dyck, C. J. Swanson, P . Aisen, R. J. Bateman, C. Chen, M. Gee, M. Kanekiyo, D. Li, L. Reyderman, S. Cohen, L. Froelich, S. Katayama, M. Sabbagh, B. V ellas, D. Watson, S. Dhadda, M. Irizarry, L. D. Kramer, and T. Iwatsubo, ‘‘Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease,’’New Eng- land Journal of Medicine, vol. 388, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Biogen Inc., ‘‘Biogen to realign resources for alzheimer’s disease fran- chise,’’ Press release, January 2024, discontinuation of ADUHELM (aducanumab-avwa); commercial availability through November 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    J. R. Sims, J. A. Zimmer, C. D. Evans, M. Lu, P . Ardayfio, J. Sparks, A. M. Wessels, S. Shcherbinin, H. Wang, E. S. Monkul Nery, E. C. Collins, P . Solomon, S. Salloway, L. G. Apostolova, O. Hansson, C. Ritchie, D. A. Brooks, M. Mintun, D. M. Skovronskyet al., ‘‘Donanemab in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease: The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 Randomized Clinical T...

    2023

  9. [9]

    C. R. Jack, Jr., J. S. Andrews, T. G. Beach, T. Buracchio, B. Dunn, A. Graf, O. Hansson, C. Ho, W. Jagust, E. McDade, J. L. Molinuevo, O. C. Okonkwo, L. Pani, M. S. Rafii, P . Scheltens, E. Siemers, H. M. Snyder, R. Sperling, C. E. Teunissen, and M. C. Carrillo, ‘‘Revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease: Alzheimer’s Association W...

    2024

  10. [10]

    Livingston, J

    G. Livingston, J. Huntley, K. Y . Liuet al., ‘‘Dementia prevention, inter- vention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission,’’The Lancet, vol. 404, no. 10452, pp. 572–628, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Jiang, L.-M

    W.-B. Jiang, L.-M. Zhao, and B.-L. Lu, ‘‘Large Brain Model for Learning Generic Representations with Tremendous EEG Data in BCI,’’ inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    J. Wang, S. Zhao, Z. Luoet al., ‘‘CBraMod: A Criss-Cross Brain Foundation Model for EEG Decoding,’’ inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.07236

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ‘‘FDA Clears First Blood Test Used in Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease,’’ FDA News Release, May 2025, 510(k) clearance of the Fujirebio Lumipulse G pTau217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio. [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/ fda-clears-first-blood-test-used-diagnosing-alzheimers-disease

    2025

  14. [14]

    L. D. Baker, M. A. Espeland, R. A. Whitmer, H. M. Snyder, X. Leng, L. Lovato, K. V . Papp, M. Y u, M. Kivipelto, A. S. Alexander, S. An- tkowiak, M. Cleveland, C. Day, R. Elbein, S. Tomaszewski Farias, D. Fel- ton, K. R. Garcia, D. R. Gitelman, S. Graef, M. Howard, J. Katula, K. Lambert, O. Matongo, A. M. McDonald, V . Pavlik, R. Raman, S. Sal- loway, C. ...

    2025

  15. [15]

    W. Song, W. Wu, Y . Zhao, H. Xu, G. Chen, S. Jin, J. Chen, S. Xian, and J. Liang, ‘‘Evidence from a meta-analysis and systematic review reveals the global prevalence of mild cognitive impairment,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 15, p. 1227112, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1227112

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Salari, F

    N. Salari, F. Lotfi, A. Abdolmalekiet al., ‘‘The global prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in geriatric population with emphasis on influential factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,’’BMC Geriatrics, vol. 25, p. 313, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12877-025-05967-w

    2025

  17. [17]

    A. J. Mitchell, ‘‘A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the mini-mental state examination in the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment,’’ Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 411–431, 2009

    2009

  18. [18]

    E. R. Paitel, C. B. D. Otteman, M. C. Polking, H. J. Licht, and K. A. Nielson, ‘‘Functional and effective eeg connectivity patterns in alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 17, p. 1496235, Feb 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1496235

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Mohamed, N

    M. Mohamed, N. Mohamed, and J. G. Kim, ‘‘P300 latency with memory performance: A promising biomarker for preclinical stages of alzheimer’s disease,’’Biosensors (Basel), vol. 14, no. 12, p. 616, Dec 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/bios14120616

    work page doi:10.3390/bios14120616 2024

  20. [20]

    Zia-Ur-Rehman, M. K. Awang, G. Ali, and M. Faheem, ‘‘Deep learning techniques for alzheimer’s disease detection in 3d imaging: A systematic review,’’Health Science Reports, vol. 7, no. 9, p. e70025, Sep 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.70025

    work page doi:10.1002/hsr2.70025 2024

  21. [21]

    Said and H

    A. Said and H. Göker, ‘‘Spectral analysis and bi-lstm deep network- based approach in detection of mild cognitive impairment from electroencephalography signals,’’Cognitive Neurodynamics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 597–614, Apr 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11571-023-10010-y

    2024

  22. [22]

    Lakhtakia, A

    T. Lakhtakia, A. Bondre, P . K. Chand, N. Chaturvedi, S. Choudhary, D. Currey, S. Dutt, A. Khan, M. Kumar, S. Gupta, S. Nagendra, P . V . Reddy, A. Rozatkar, L. Scheuer, Y . Sen, R. Shrivastava, R. Singh, J. Thirthalli, D. K. Tugnawat, A. Bhan, J. A. Naslund, V . Patel, M. Keshavan, U. M. Mehta, and J. Torous, ‘‘Smartphone digital phenotyping, surveys, an...

  23. [23]

    K. D. Rudd, K. Lawler, M. L. Callisaya, A. D. Bindoff, S. Chiranakorn- Costa, R. Li, J. S. McDonald, K. Salmon, A. J. Noyce, J. C. Vickers, and J. Alty, ‘‘Hand motor dysfunction is associated with both subjective and objective cognitive impairment across the dementia continuum,’’ Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 07 20...

    work page doi:10.1159/000540412 2024

  24. [24]

    Cejudo, M

    A. Cejudo, M. Arrojo, C. Martín, and A. Almeida, ‘‘AI and Wearables for Early Detection of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Systematic Review,’’Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 28, p. e86262, 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    M. Y an, H. Yin, Q. Meng, S. Wang, Y . Ding, G. Li, C. Wang, and L. Chen, ‘‘A virtual supermarket program for the screening of mild cognitive impairment in older adults: Diagnostic accuracy study,’’JMIR Serious Games, vol. 9, no. 4, p. e30919, Dec 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Gómez-Cáceres, I

    B. Gómez-Cáceres, I. Cano-López, M. Aliño, and S. Puig-Perez, ‘‘Effectiveness of virtual reality-based neuropsychological interventions in improving cognitive functioning in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis,’’The Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1337–1370, 2023, PMID: 36416175. [Online]. Availab...

    arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    J. Park, K. Chung, Y . Oh, K. J. Kim, C. O. Kim, and J. Y . Park, ‘‘Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A two-week intervention,’’ Yonsei Medical Journal, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 341–347, Jun 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2023.0430

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Nardone, L

    R. Nardone, L. Sebastianelli, V . V ersace, D. Ferrazzoli, L. Saltuari, and E. Trinka, ‘‘Tms–eeg co-registration in patients with mild cognitive impairment, alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: A systematic review,’’Brain Sciences, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 303, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11030303

    work page doi:10.3390/brainsci11030303 2021

  29. [29]

    X. Du, J. Novoa-Laurentiev, J. M. Plasek, Y . Chuang, L. Wang, G. A. Marshall, S. K. Mueller, F. Chang, S. Datta, H. Paek, B. Lin, Q. Wei, X. Wang, J. Wang, H. Ding, F. J. Manion, J. Du, D. W. Bates, and L. Zhou, ‘‘Enhancing early detection of cognitive decline in the elderly: A comparative study utilizing large language models in clinical notes,’’EBioMed...

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Colita, V

    E. Colita, V . O. Mateescu, D.-G. Olaru, and A. Popa-Wagner, ‘‘Cognitive decline in ageing and disease: Risk factors, genetics and treatments,’’ VOLUME 11, 2023 17 Current Health Sciences Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 170–180, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.50.02.02

    work page doi:10.12865/chsj.50.02.02 2023

  31. [31]

    J. Bae, M. Choi, J. J. Lee, K. H. Lee, and J. U. Kim, ‘‘Connectivity changes in two-channel prefrontal erp associated with early cognitive decline in the elderly population: Beta band responses to the auditory oddball stimuli,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 16, p. 1456169,

  32. [32]

    Beltrami, G

    D. Beltrami, G. Gagliardi, R. Rossini Favretti, E. Ghidoni, F. Tamburini, and L. Calzà, ‘‘Speech analysis by natural language processing techniques: A possible tool for very early detection of cognitive decline?’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 414837, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00369

    arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Jiang, L

    D. Jiang, L. Y an, and F. Mayrand, ‘‘Emotion expressions and cognitive impairments in the elderly: Review of the contactless detection approach,’’Frontiers in Digital Health, vol. 6, p. 1335289, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1335289

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Y amagami, M

    T. Y amagami, M. Y agi, S. Tanaka, S. Anzai, T. Ueda, Y . Omori, C. Tanaka, and Y . Shiba, ‘‘Relationship between cognitive decline and daily life gait among elderly people living in the community: A preliminary report,’’ Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Dec 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1159/000528507

    work page doi:10.1159/000528507 2023

  35. [35]

    H. Chen, Y . Deng, X. Liet al., ‘‘Factors associated with dementia risk reduction lifestyle in mild cognitive impairment: A cross-sectional study of individuals and their family caregivers,’’BMC Neurology, vol. 25, p. 169, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12883-025-04183-8

    2025

  36. [36]

    A. Berg, S. Sinclair, A. Acosta-Parra, A. N. Glosson, C. Moreno, and E. Fletcher, ‘‘Lifestyle factors’ influence on episodic memory: A gradient boosted tree analysis,’’Alzheimer’s & Dementia, vol. 20, p. e095791,

  37. [37]

    S. Y . Jeon and J. L. Kim, ‘‘Caregiving for a spouse with cognitive impairment: Effects on nutrition and other lifestyle factors,’’Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD-210694

    2021

  38. [38]

    Sigmundsson, B

    H. Sigmundsson, B. H. Dybendal, and S. Grassini, ‘‘Motion, relation, and passion in brain physiological and cognitive aging,’’Brain Sciences, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 1122, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci12091122

    2022

  39. [39]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.095791

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.095791

    work page doi:10.1002/alz.095791

  40. [40]

    A. A. Tahami Monfared, W. Y e, A. Sardesaiet al., ‘‘A path to improved alzheimer’s care: Simulating long-term health outcomes of lecanemab in early alzheimer’s disease from the clarity ad trial,’’ Neurology and Therapy, vol. 12, pp. 863–881, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-023-00473-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s40120-023-00473-w 2023

  41. [41]

    Y e, ‘‘Factors influencing memory decline in older adults: A compre- hensive review,’’Studies in Psychological Science, vol

    Z. Y e, ‘‘Factors influencing memory decline in older adults: A compre- hensive review,’’Studies in Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27– 41, 2023

    2023

  42. [42]

    J. K. Burton, D. J. Stott, R. McShane, A. H. Noel-Storr, R. S. Swann- Price, and T. J. Quinn, ‘‘Informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (iqcode) for the early detection of dementia across a variety of healthcare settings,’’Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 7,

  43. [43]

    Z. Y u, A. Mulholland, T. Huang, and Q. Liu, ‘‘Multimodal AI for Alzheimer Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review of Datasets, Mod- els, and Modalities,’’Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 28, p. e85414, 2026

    2026

  44. [44]

    Mobtahejet al., ‘‘Transformer-Based Deep Learning Approaches for Speech-Based Dementia Detection: A Systematic Review,’’IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol

    P . Mobtahejet al., ‘‘Transformer-Based Deep Learning Approaches for Speech-Based Dementia Detection: A Systematic Review,’’IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 2034–2048, 2026

    2034

  45. [45]

    Gausemel and P

    Å. Gausemel and P . Filkuková, ‘‘Innovations in dementia screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of virtual reality assessments,’’ Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 16, p. 1606562, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Acharya, R

    M. Acharya, R. C. Deo, X. Taoet al., ‘‘Deep learning techniques for automated Alzheimer’s and mild cognitive impairment disease using EEG signals: A comprehensive review of the last decade (2013–2024),’’ Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 259, p. 108506, 2025

    2013

  47. [47]

    X. Xin, Q. Liu, S. Jia, S. Li, P . Wang, X. Wang, and X. Wang, ‘‘Correlation of muscle strength, information processing speed and cognitive function in the elderly with cognitive impairment——evidence from eeg,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 17, p. 1496725, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1496725

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    W. S. Kumar and S. Ray, ‘‘Healthy ageing and cognitive impairment alter eeg functional connectivity in distinct frequency bands,’’European Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3432–3449, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16114

    work page doi:10.1111/ejn.16114 2023

  49. [49]

    B. Tóth, B. File, R. Boha, Z. Kardos, Z. Hidasi, Z. A. Gaál, Éva Csibri, P . Salacz, C. J. Stam, and M. Molnár, ‘‘Eeg network connectivity changes in mild cognitive impairment — preliminary results,’’International Journal of Psychophysiology, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167876014000403

    2014

  50. [50]

    S. E. Polk, F. Öhman, J. Hassenstabet al., ‘‘A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease,’’npj Digital Medicine, vol. 8, p. 266, 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    M. N. A. Tawhid, S. Siuly, E. Kabir, and Y . Li, ‘‘Exploring frequency band-based biomarkers of eeg signals for mild cognitive impairment detection,’’IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 32, pp. 189–199, 2024

    2024

  52. [52]

    Q. Chen, W. Hou, X. Wang, W. Zheng, M. Hou, H. Zeng, and L. Cheng, ‘‘Early warning and screening of elderly cognitive impairment based on machine learning algorithm,’’ in2023 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Computer Communication and Artificial Intelligence (CCAI), May 2023, pp. 7–14

    2023

  53. [53]

    A. H. Meghdadi, D. Salat, J. Hamilton, Y . Hong, B. F. Boeve et al., ‘‘Eeg and erp biosignatures of mild cognitive impairment for longitudinal monitoring of early cognitive decline in alzheimer’s disease,’’PLOS ONE, vol. 19, no. 8, p. e0308137, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308137

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308137 2024

  54. [54]

    jae Kim, Y

    M. jae Kim, Y . C. Y oun, and J. Paik, ‘‘Deep learning-based eeg analysis to classify normal, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia: Algorithms and dataset,’’NeuroImage, vol. 272, p. 120054, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923002008

    2023

  55. [55]

    Praveena and G

    G. Praveena and G. Ramesh, ‘‘Early detection of alzheimer’s disease and dementia using deep convolutional neural networks,’’ in2024 Third In- ternational Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics (ICDCECE), April 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  56. [56]

    Chattopadhyay, N

    T. Chattopadhyay, N. A. Joshy, S. S. Ozarkar, K. Buwa, Y . Feng, E. Laltoo, S. I. Thomopoulos, J. E. Villalon, H. Joshi, G. V enkatasubramanian, J. P . John, and P . M. Thompson, ‘‘Brain age analysis and dementia classifica- tion using convolutional neural networks trained on diffusion mri: Tests in indian and north american cohorts,’’ in2024 46th Annual ...

    2024

  57. [57]

    M. Wu, M. Y u, S. Jing, P .-T. Y ap, Z. Zhang, and M. Liu, ‘‘Unpaired volumetric harmonization of brain MRI with conditional latent diffusion,’’ Medical Image Analysis, vol. 107, p. 103849, 2026

    2026

  58. [58]

    Z. Khan, A. Saif, N. Chaudhry, and A. Parveen, ‘‘Effect of aerobic exercise training on eeg: event-related potential and neuropsychological functions in depressed elderly with mild cognitive impairment,’’ Dementia & Neuropsychologia, vol. 17, p. e20220082, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2022-0082

    work page doi:10.1590/1980-5764-dn-2022-0082 2023

  59. [59]

    Singh, A

    D. Singh, A. Grazia, M. Dyrba, and S. Teipel, ‘‘An explainable framework for convolutional neural networks detecting dementia in mri scans,’’ Alzheimer’s & Dementia, vol. 20, p. e086103, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.086103

    work page doi:10.1002/alz.086103 2024

  60. [60]

    X. Chen, Y . Li, R. Li, X. Y uan, M. Liu, W. Zhang, and Y . Li, ‘‘Multiple cross-frequency coupling analysis of resting-state eeg in patients with mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer’s disease,’’ Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 15, p. 1142085, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1142085

    arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Sibilano, A

    E. Sibilano, A. Brunetti, D. Buongiorno, M. Lassi, A. Grippo, V . Bessi, S. Micera, A. Mazzoni, and V . Bevilacqua, ‘‘An attention-based deep learning approach for the classification of subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment using resting-state eeg,’’Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 016048, feb 2023. [Online]. Availabl...

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/acb96e 2023

  62. [62]

    Haché, V

    B. Haché, V . Roca, G. Kuchcinskiet al., ‘‘NeuroHarm-Kit: an open- source toolbox for benchmarking deep-learning harmonization of multi- site T1-weighted MRI,’’NeuroImage, vol. 338, p. 122089, 2026

    2026

  63. [63]

    Champetier, C

    P . Champetier, C. Albero, F. Raposo Pereiraet al., ‘‘Sleep-like slow waves during resting-state: a promising EEG biomarker of amyloid and neurodegeneration in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease,’’Alzheimer’s & Dementia, vol. 22, no. 6, p. e71514, 2026. 18 VOLUME 11, 2023

    2026

  64. [64]

    Tripanpitak, A

    K. Tripanpitak, A. Wolf, M. Kapitonovaet al., ‘‘Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Recent Advances in Task-Based EEG,’’Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 58–73, 2026

    2026

  65. [65]

    M. Fang, Y . Y an, W. Songet al., ‘‘Effects of 40-Hz transcranial alternat- ing current stimulation on cognition and neural markers in Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial,’’Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 115, 2026

    2026

  66. [66]

    Liang, P

    Y . Liang, P . Li, Y . Wanget al., ‘‘Application of resting-state EEG theta/alpha power ratio analysis for diagnosing amnestic mild cognitive impairment,’’Scientific Reports, vol. 16, p. 21471, 2026

    2026

  67. [67]

    Kim, J.-H

    H.-J. Kim, J.-H. Lee, E.-n. Cheong, S.-E. Chung, S. Jo, W.-H. Shim, and Y . J. Hong, ‘‘Elucidating the risk factors for progression from amyloid-negative amnestic mild cognitive impairment to dementia,’’ Current Alzheimer Research, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 893–903, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/111935

    2020

  68. [68]

    Joshi, S

    H. Joshi, S. Bharath, R. Balachandar, S. Sadanand, H. V . Vishwakarma, S. Aiyappan, J. Saini, K. J. Kumar, J. P . John, and M. V arghese, ‘‘Differentiation of early alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitively healthy elderly samples using multimodal neuroimaging indices,’’Brain Connectivity, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 730–741, 2019, PMID: 3138...

    arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    P . Li, Q. Huang, S. Ban, Y . Qiao, J. Wu, Y . Zhai, X. Du, F. Hua, and J. Su, ‘‘Altered default mode network is associated with cognitive impairment in cadasil as revealed by multimodal neuroimaging,’’ Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 12, p. 735033, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.735033

    arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Berezuk, M

    C. Berezuk, M. Khan, B. L. Callahan, J. Ramirez, S. E. Black, and K. K. Zakzanis, ‘‘Sex differences in risk factors that predict progression from mild cognitive impairment to alzheimer’s dementia,’’Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 360–368, 2023

    2023

  71. [71]

    S. Sun, D. Liu, Y . Zhou, G. Y ang, L. Cui, X. Xu, Y . Guo, T. Sun, J. Jiang, N. Li, Y . Wang, S. Li, X. Wang, L. Fan, and F. Cao, ‘‘Longitudinal real world correlation study of blood pressure and novel features of cerebral magnetic resonance angiography by artificial intelligence analysis on elderly cognitive impairment,’’Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience,...

    arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    S. A. Graham, E. E. Lee, D. V . Jeste, R. V . Patten, E. W. Twamley, C. Nebeker, Y . Y amada, C. Kim, and C. A. Depp, ‘‘Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting and detecting cognitive decline in older adults: A conceptual review,’’Psychiatry Research, vol. 284, p. 112732, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112732

    arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Falaschetti, G

    L. Falaschetti, G. Biagetti, M. Alessandrini, C. Turchetti, S. Luzzi, and P . Crippa, ‘‘Multi-class detection of neurodegenerative diseases from eeg signals using lightweight lstm neural networks,’’Sensors, vol. 24, no. 20, p. 6721, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206721

    work page doi:10.3390/s24206721 2023

  74. [74]

    Kim, S.-M

    S. Kim, S.-M. Wang, D. W. Kang, Y . H. Um, H. M. Y oon, S. Lee, Y . S. Choe, R. E. Kim, D. Kim, C. U. Lee, and H. K. Lim, ‘‘Development of a prediction model for cognitive impairment of sarcopenia using multimodal neuroimaging in non-demented older adults,’’Alzheimer’s & Dementia, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4868–4878, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://alz-journ...

    work page doi:10.1002/alz.14054 2024

  75. [75]

    M. Asif, M. T. Vinodbhai, S. Mishra, A. Gupta, and U. S. Tiwary, ‘‘Emotion recognition in V AD space during emotional events using CNN-GRU hybrid model on EEG signals,’’ inIntelligent Human Computer Interaction (IHCI 2022), ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13741. Springer, 2023, pp. 75–84. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-27199-1_8 2022

  76. [76]

    M. Asif, N. Ali, S. Mishra, A. Dandawate, and U. S. Tiwary, ‘‘Deep fuzzy framework for emotion recognition using EEG signals and emotion representation in type-2 fuzzy V AD space,’’arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07892, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2401.07892

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.07892 2024

  77. [77]

    B. A. C. Ramalho, L. R. Bortolato, N. D. Gomes, L. Wichert-Ana, F. E. Padovan-Neto, M. A. A. da Silva, and K. J. C. C. de Lacerda, ‘‘The impact of the orientation of mri slices on the accuracy of alzheimer’s disease classification using convolutional neural networks (cnns),’’Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 0, 2024. [Online]. Availa...

    2024

  78. [78]

    Khosraviet al., ‘‘Fusing convolutional learning and attention-based bi-lstm networks for early alzheimer’s diagnosis from eeg signals towards iomt,’’Scientific Reports, vol

    M. Khosraviet al., ‘‘Fusing convolutional learning and attention-based bi-lstm networks for early alzheimer’s diagnosis from eeg signals towards iomt,’’Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 26002, Oct 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77876-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77876-8 2024

  79. [79]

    M. U. Ali, K. S. Kim, M. Khalid, M. Farrash, A. Zafar, and S. W. Lee, ‘‘Enhancing alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and staging: A multistage cnn framework using mri,’’Frontiers in Psychiatry, vol. 15, p. 1395563,

  80. [80]

    Sinha, S

    S. Sinha, S. I. Thomopoulos, P . Lam, A. Muir, and P . M. Thompson, ‘‘Alzheimer’s disease classification accuracy is improved by mri harmonization based on attention-guided generative adversarial networks,’’ inProceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis, ser. Proc. SPIE, vol. 12088, December 2021, p. 1208...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2606155 2021

Showing first 80 references.