Cited by 8Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Leveraging large language models through natural language processing to provide interpretable machine learning predictions of mental deterioration in real time

Open access
de Arriba-Pérez, Francisco, García-Méndez, Silvia·2025·Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Abstract

Abstract Based on official estimates, 50 million people worldwide are affected by dementia, and this number increases by 10 million new patients every year. Without a cure, clinical prognostication and early intervention represent the most effective ways to delay its progression. To this end, artificial intelligence and computational linguistics can be exploited for natural language analysis, personalized assessment, monitoring, and treatment. However, traditional approaches need more semantic knowledge management and explicability capabilities. Moreover, using large language models ( llm s) for cognitive decline diagnosis is still scarce, even though these models represent the most advanced way for clinical–patient communication using intelligent systems. Consequently, we leverage an llm using the latest natural language processing ( nlp ) techniques in a chatbot solution to provide interpretable machine learning prediction of cognitive decline in real-time. Linguistic-conceptual features are exploited for appropriate natural language analysis. Through explainability, we aim to fight potential biases of the models and improve their potential to help clinical workers in their diagnosis decisions. More in detail, the proposed pipeline is composed of (i) data extraction employing nlp -based prompt engineering; (ii) stream-based data processing including feature engineering, analysis, and selection; (iii) real-time classification; and (iv) the explainability dashboard to provide visual and natural language descriptions of the prediction outcome. Classification results exceed 80% in all evaluation metrics, with a recall value for the mental deterioration class about 85%. To sum up, we contribute with an affordable, flexible, non-invasive, personalized diagnostic system to this work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13369-024-09508-2

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the 69 reviewed studies, only three included any user-facing evaluation of explanation presentation.

    “Of the 69 reviewed studies, only three [75,76,104] included any user-facing evaluation of explanation presentation.”

    From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [76]

    Sections 3.4 (p. 7) and 4.5 (p. 12) describe an explanation dashboard intended for end users, but do not report users evaluating how its explanations are presented. A search for user studies, surveys, and assessments of explanation clarity found only descriptions of the dashboard and evaluations of prediction performance. This source also cannot establish the citing review’s count of three out of 69 studies. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kenton, J.D.M.W.C.; Toutanova, L.K.: Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4171–4186 (2019)
  2. Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 1877–1901 (2020)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Arriba-Pérez, F., & García-Méndez, S.
Affiliations
Universidade de Vigo (ES)
Corresponding author
García-Méndez, Silvia
Venue
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Published
2024-08-27
Volume
50
Issue
15
Pages
11577-11591
ISSN
  • 1319-8025 (ISSN-L)
  • 2193-567X
  • 2191-4281
OpenAlex
W4401900598
Cited by
8
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Investigo Institutional repository of UVigo (Universidade de Vigo) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Xunta de Galicia (ED481B-2021-118, ED481B-2022-093)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
dementia, cognitive decline prediction, large language models, chatbots, model interpretability, explainability, prompt engineering, real-time classification, clinical decision support, natural language processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review