ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Generalizability of EEG-Based DEMENTIA Classifiers: A Multicenter study of Alzheimer's, MCI, and FTD.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
EEG-based machine learning shows promise for neurodegenerative disease classification, but robustness to sample imbalance, center heterogeneity, and validation leakage remains a key concern for clinical translation. We developed a new framework to assess diagnostic performance, calibration, and cross-center generalizability of EEG multifeatured classifiers across CN (cognitively normal), MCI (mild cognitive impairment), AD (Alzheimer's disease), and FTD (frontotemporal dementia), while addressing imbalance, statistical uncertainty, and validation rigor across six centers. Supervised classifiers were evaluated at aggregated- and subject-level repeated cross-validation and leave-one-center-out (LOCO) schemes, and calibration was implemented via Platt scaling within strictly nested folds. CN vs AD classification showed robust performance and cross-center generalizability, with consistent AUC and calibration across cross-validation and leave-one-center-out analyses. In contrast, CN versus MCI showed moderate, heterogeneous performance and limited cross-center generalizability, with chance-level results in some cohorts, while MCI versus AD showed moderate discrimination in a single available center. FTD contrasts showed modest or limited performance due to sparse samples. Predicted probabilities were stable across validation regimes for AD, but less consistent for MCI and FTD, and correlated robustly with cognitive impairment severity only for AD. Feature importance analyses identified disease-specific signatures, including alpha-band degradation and slow-wave increases in AD, with weaker and more heterogeneous patterns in prodromal and differential dementia contrasts (FTD vs AD). EEG classifiers provided robust discrimination for CN vs AD but showed limited and heterogeneous performance for MCI and FTD across centers. These results emphasize the need for balanced sampling, strict validation of clinical and EEG protocols, and uncertainty quantification to support reliable clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.