Abstract:Background: Dementia, a global health priority, has no current cure. Around 50 million people worldwide currently live with dementia, and this number is expected to treble by 2050. Some health conditions and lifestyle behaviours can increase or decrease the risk of dementia and are known as 'predictors'. Prognostic models combine such predictors to measure the risk of future dementia. Models that can accurately predict future dementia would help clinicians select high-risk adults in middle age and implement targeted risk reduction. Objectives: Our primary objective was to identify multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 65 years) for predicting dementia or cognitive impairment. Eligible multi-domain prognostic models involved two or more of the modifiable dementia predictors identified in a 2020 Lancet Commission report and a 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) report (less education, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol intake, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes mellitus, air pollution, poor diet, and cognitive inactivity). Our secondary objectives were to summarise the prognostic models, to appraise their predictive accuracy (discrimination and calibration) as reported in the development and validation studies, and to identify the implications of using dementia prognostic models for the management of people at a higher risk for future dementia. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection from inception until 6 June 2022. We performed forwards and backwards citation tracking of included studies using the Web of Science platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included development and validation studies of multi-domain prognostic models. The minimum eligible follow-up was five years. Our primary outcome was an incident clinical diagnosis of dementia based on validated diagnostic criteria, and our secondary outcome was dementia or cognitive impairment determined by any other method. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened the references, extracted data using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and assessed risk of bias and applicability of included studies using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We synthesised the C-statistics of models that had been externally validated in at least three comparable studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 eligible studies; eight were development studies and 12 were validation studies. There were 14 unique prognostic models: seven models with validation studies and seven models with development-only studies. The models included a median of nine predictors (range 6 to 34); the median number of modifiable predictors was five (range 2 to 11). The most common modifiable predictors in externally validated models were diabetes, hypertension, smoking, physical activity, and obesity. In development-only models, the most common modifiable predictors were obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. No models included hearing loss or air pollution as predictors. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST assessment, mainly because of inappropriate analysis methods, particularly lack of reported calibration measures. Applicability concerns were low for 12 studies, as their population, predictors, and outcomes were consistent with those of interest for this review. Applicability concerns were high for nine studies, as they lacked baseline cognitive screening or excluded an age group within the range of 45 to 65 years. Only one model, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing, and Dementia (CAIDE), had been externally validated in multiple studies, allowing for meta-analysis. The CAIDE model included eight predictors (four modifiable predictors): age, education, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, physical activity and APOEƐ4 status. Overall, our confidence in the prediction accuracy of CAIDE was very low; our main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence were high risk of bias across all the studies, high concern of applicability, non-overlapping confidence intervals (CIs), and a high degree of heterogeneity. The summary C-statistic was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for the incident clinical diagnosis of dementia, and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.73; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for dementia or cognitive impairment based on cognitive scores. Meta-analysis of calibration measures was not possible, as few studies provided these data. Authors' conclusions: We identified 14 unique multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults for predicting subsequent dementia. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking were the most common modifiable risk factors used as predictors in the models. We performed meta-analyses of C-statistics for one model (CAIDE), but the summary values were unreliable. Owing to lack of data, we were unable to meta-analyse the calibration measures of CAIDE. This review highlights the need for further robust external validations of multi-domain prognostic models for predicting future risk of dementia in middle-aged adults.

Development and validation of a patient-level model to predict dementia across a network of observational databases

Development and Validation of a Dementia Risk Prediction Model in the General Population: An Analysis of Three Longitudinal Studies

Development of a Novel Dementia Risk Prediction Model in the General Population: A Large, Longitudinal, Population-Based Machine-Learning Study

Dementia prediction in the general population using clinically accessible variables: a proof-of-concept study using machine learning. The AGES-Reykjavik study

External validation of dementia prediction models in Black or African American and White older adults: A longitudinal population‐based study in the United States

Multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults without known cognitive impairment for predicting subsequent dementia

Identifying individuals at high risk for dementia in primary care: Development and validation of the DemRisk risk prediction model using routinely collected patient data

Develop a Diagnostic Tool for Dementia Using Machine Learning and Non-Imaging Features

Study protocol for the development and validation of a clinical prediction tool to estimate the risk of 1-year mortality among hospitalized patients with dementia

Individualized, cross‐validated prediction of future dementia using cognitive assessments in people with mild cognitive symptoms

Developing an Explainable Machine Learning-Based Personalised Dementia Risk Prediction Model: A Transfer Learning Approach With Ensemble Learning Algorithms

Models to Predict Need for Nursing Home Level of Care in Older Adults With Dementia

Differences in cohort study data affect external validation of artificial intelligence models for predictive diagnostics of dementia - lessons for translation into clinical practice

What's New in Dementia Risk Prediction Modelling? An Updated Systematic Review

Predicting Dementia Risk for Elderly Community Dwellers in Primary Care Services Using Subgroup-specific Prediction Models

DEVELOP AND EXTERNALLY VALIDATE A RISK PREDICTION MODEL FOR SCREENING COGNITIVE FRAILTY IN OLDER ADULTS

Development and Validation of Prediction Models for Incident Reversible Cognitive Frailty Based on Social-Ecological Predictors Using Generalized Linear Mixed Model and Machine Learning Algorithms: A Prospective Cohort Study

Developing a Novel Holistic, Personalized Dementia Risk Prediction Model via Integration of Machine Learning and Network Systems Biology Approaches

Incremental Value of Multidomain Risk Factors for Dementia Prediction: A Machine Learning Approach

Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Progression to Dementia in Memory Clinic Patients

Models for predicting risk of dementia: a systematic review.