ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
An interpretable machine learning screening model for MoCA-defined possible mild cognitive impairment in rural Xinjiang: a preliminary framework for resource-limited primary care.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To construct and validate an interpretable machine learning screening model for MoCA-defined possible mild cognitive impairment applicable to residents in rural areas of Xinjiang, China. Methods: A total of 708 residents from rural Xinjiang were recruited between June and July 2025. Six machine learning methods-Logistic Regression (LR), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Naïve Bayes (NB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM)-were employed to identify MoCA-defined possible MCI based on data from four dimensions: physiological, psychological, social, and behavioral. The optimal model was selected using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) as the primary evaluation metric. Model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive explanations (SHAP), and the dose-response relationships between continuous variables and MoCA-defined possible MCI were visualized using Restricted Cubic Splines (RCS). Results: After feature selection, nine key variables were retained for model construction. Among the six models developed, the XGBoost model demonstrated the best performance, achieving an AUC of 0.839 (95% CI: 0.811-0.867) in the training set and 0.747 (95% CI: 0.673-0.820) in the validation set. SHAP analysis revealed that Education, Age, and Direct Bilirubin (DBIL) were the three most influential predictors. Restricted cubic spline analysis indicated linear correlations with MoCA-defined possible MCI for Education, Age, DBIL, and Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) (overall Conclusion: We developed and validated an interpretable screening model for MoCA-defined possible MCI tailored to rural Xinjiang by integrating established machine learning techniques within a localized framework. The primary contribution of this work lies in the applied and translational validation of these methods for an understudied, resource-limited population rather than in algorithmic innovation. The finalized XGBoost model requires only nine easily obtainable variables, offering moderate discriminative performance and useful interpretability for preliminary screening purposes. This preliminary screening framework may offer a potentially useful approach for cognitive risk stratification in resource-limited primary care settings, though independent external validation is required before broader implementation.
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.