Advancing Alzheimer’s research: a review of big data promises
Open accessAbstract
Objective To review the current state of science using big data to advance Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and practice. In particular, we analyzed the types of research foci addressed, corresponding methods employed and study findings reported using big data in AD.Method Systematic review was conducted for articles published in PubMed from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015. Keywords with AD and big data analytics were used for literature retrieval. Articles were reviewed and included if they met the eligibility criteria.Results Thirty-eight articles were included in this review. They can be categorized into seven research foci: diagnosing AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n=10), predicting MCI to AD conversion (n=13), stratifying risks for AD (n=5), mining the literature for knowledge discovery (n=4), predicting AD progression (n=2), describing clinical care for persons with AD (n=3), and understanding the relationship between cognition and AD (n=3). The most commonly used datasets are AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (n=16), electronic health records (EHR) (n=11), MEDLINE (n=3), and other research datasets (n=8). Logistic regression (n=9) and support vector machine (n=8) are the most used methods for data analysis.Conclusion Big data are increasingly used to address AD-related research questions. While existing research datasets are frequently used, other datasets such as EHR data provide a unique, yet under-utilized opportunity for advancing AD research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Zhang, R., Simon, G., & Yu, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Rui
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 106
- Pages
- 48-56
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5590222
- OpenAlex
- W2738454660
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Mayo Clinic
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG043392)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM120079)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT009457)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, big data analytics, mild cognitive impairment, ADNI, electronic health records, knowledge discovery
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Databases, Factual, Disease Progression, Biomedical Research, Data Mining, Neuroimaging
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