Applications and implicit assumptions in dementia risk scores

A scoping review of the LIBRA score

Review (2026)
Author(s)

Wouter M.R. Kant (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

Wieske K. de Swart (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

Jim M. Smit (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

Marco Loog (TU Delft - Pattern Recognition and Bioinformatics, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

Jesse H. Krijthe (TU Delft - Pattern Recognition and Bioinformatics)

Research Group
Pattern Recognition and Bioinformatics
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823261416457
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Research Group
Pattern Recognition and Bioinformatics
Journal title
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports
Volume number
10
Downloads counter
9
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Dementia risk scores are commonly used tools to estimate the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease and dementia. We lack an overview of what risk scores are used for, what is claimed they ought to be used for, and whether they are suitable for these applications. To address this, we use the ‘Lifestyle for Brain Health’ (LIBRA) score as a representative example risk score and conduct a literature review to study its applications. The goals of this study are (1) to create an overview of how the LIBRA score has been utilized in scientific articles, (2) to record other applications that these same articles mention, and (3) to critically assess whether LIBRA is suitable for these applications. Of the 66 articles included in our review, 36 involved analyzing associations of LIBRA with dementia, cognition, or other outcomes. We also identified several other applications, with 32 articles mentioning LIBRA as an estimate of ‘dementia prevention potential’, 6 articles used LIBRA as a surrogate outcome for their trial or intervention, and 7 articles mentioned that it could help support clinician decisions in practice. Although there is a clear need for tools that can be used for these applications, the amount of evidence supporting the suitability of dementia risk scores for many of these applications is limited. We recommend that researchers transparently report the purposes of these dementia risk scores, which may include causal tasks, and that research is done to evaluate whether it is valid to use these scores in this way.