Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Currently submitted to: JMIR Aging

Date Submitted: Dec 24, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 27, 2026 - Mar 24, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Development, validation and algorithmic fairness of traditional statistical and machine learning models for dementia risk: a population-based cohort study

  • Lingling Zheng; 
  • Nana Peng; 
  • Tengfei Lin; 
  • Yiwen Jiang; 
  • Peng Wu; 
  • Xin Liu; 
  • Xiaofu Li; 
  • Ying Li; 
  • Yanxiao Gao; 
  • Bingyu Li; 
  • Hao Luo; 
  • Hao Wu; 
  • Zhiguo Gong; 
  • Zhirong Yang; 
  • Feng Sha; 
  • Jinling Tang

ABSTRACT

Background:

Machine learning is increasingly used in dementia risk prediction models, but their clinical utility and algorithmic fairness remain uncertain.

Objective:

This study aimed to develop and validate traditional statistical and machine learning models for dementia risk prediction in the general population and to evaluate their fairness across key subgroups.

Methods:

This population-based cohort study followed 483,824 UK Biobank participants without dementia for up to 13 years. Five models for all-cause dementia were developed using 56 evidence-based predictors: Cox proportional hazards model (Cox-PH), competing event risk model (CR), logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, and LightGBM. An age-only model was also developed for comparison. Model performance was assessed at various risk-stratified thresholds, and algorithmic fairness was evaluated through subgroup analysis.

Results:

During follow-up, 7,087 participants (1.46%) developed dementia. All models showed similar discrimination (C-index: 0.85-0.90). Although traditional statistical models (Cox-PH, CR, and LR) had lower C-indices than XGBoost and LightGBM in the internal validation cohort (C-index: 0.85-0.86 vs. 0.87-0.90), their performance in the external validation cohort was similar (C-index: 0.86-0.87 vs. 0.87). With 20% of the screening population identified as high-risk, detection rates ranged from 74% to 76%, with positive predictive values (PPV) of 5%, while the age-only model achieved 68% detection with PPV of 4% externally. The C index decreased to 0.59-0.70 in those aged over 70 years.

Conclusions:

Traditional statistical and machine learning models had comparable performance in predicting dementia risk within the general population. However, all models showed limited ability to predict high-risk individuals, especially in older populations, indicating limited clinical utility.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Zheng L, Peng N, Lin T, Jiang Y, Wu P, Liu X, Li X, Li Y, Gao Y, Li B, Luo H, Wu H, Gong Z, Yang Z, Sha F, Tang J

Development, validation and algorithmic fairness of traditional statistical and machine learning models for dementia risk: a population-based cohort study

JMIR Preprints. 24/12/2025:90262

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.90262

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/90262

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.