Dementia-R1: Reinforced Pretraining and Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Notes for Real-World Dementia Prognosis
Authors: Choonghan Kim, Hyunmin Hwang, Hangeol Chang, Jaemin Kim, Jinse Park, Jae-Sung Lim, Jong Chul Ye
Organizations: Graduate School of AI, KAIST, Republic of Korea · Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University, Republic of Korea · Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on clinical text understanding, they struggle with longitudinal prediction tasks such as dementia prognosis, which require reasoning over complex, non-monotonic symptom trajectories across multiple visits. Standard supervised training lacks explicit annotations for symptom evolution, while direct Reinforcement Learning (RL) is hindered by sparse binary rewards. To address this challenge, we introduce Dementia-R1, an RL-based framework for longitudinal dementia prognosis from unstructured clinical notes. Our approach adopts a Cold-Start RL strategy that pre-trains the model to predict verifiable clinical indices extracted from patient histories, enhancing the capability to reason about disease progression before determining the final clinical status. Extensive experiments show that Dementia-R1 achieves the best overall performance on the AMC real-world unstructured cohort, reaching an AUROC of 84.02% and outperforming models up to 10x larger. The framework also generalizes to Parkinson's disease dementia prediction in an independent hospital cohort, achieving an AUROC of 78.37%. On the ADNI benchmark, our 7B model attains the highest AUROC among all LLM baselines at 83.17%, demonstrating strong longitudinal reasoning over fluctuating cognitive trajectories. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/dementiar1-CDB5.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Multi-dimensional Performance Profile. Dementia-R1 demonstrates a consistent and balanced performance gain across all dimensions, including intermediate clinical reasoning tasks (e.g., MMSE, CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog) and the final dementia prognosis (F1, AUROC, AUPRC).
Figure 2: Overview of the Dementia-R1 Framework. Stage 1 pre-trains longitudinal reasoning via GRPO on clinical index forecasting; Stage 2 fine-tunes for the final dementia prognosis.
Figure 3: Experimental setup: sample construction and cohort composition.
Figure 4: Performance across time gaps. AUROC (top) and AUPRC (bottom) by prediction horizon for (a) AMC, (b) HPH, and (c) ADNI. Dementia-R1 achieves the highest AUROC at the longest prediction horizons across all three cohorts.
Figure 5: Clinical Index Density. ADNI ( ∼ 4.3 × ) and AMC ( ∼ 1.6 × ) have more index visits per patient than HPH.
Figure 6: Neurologist Blind Pairwise Evaluation . Results from two cohorts (AMC and HPH) comparing Dementia-R1 against Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct across five clinical dimensions.
Figure 7: Stage 1 Pre-training Impact. AUROC over training epochs on (a) AMC, (b) HPH, and (c) ADNI. Solid lines show 500-step binned averages; dashed lines show raw checkpoint values.
Figure 8: Pretraining Density Ablation. Best overall AUROC at varying Stage 1 index density levels on (a) AMC and (b) ADNI. Performance degrades monotonically with reduced density.
Figure 9: Note vs. Index Ablation. AUROC by prediction window on (a) AMC and (b) HPH. Three input settings are compared: Note Only (raw clinical text), Index Only (structured MMSE/GDS/CDR), and Note + Index (combined).
Figure 10: Clinical Index Masking Ablation. AUROC change ( Δ ) when masking clinical indices at inference. Conditions are named by the index removed: M = MMSE, G = GDS, C = CDR in (a) AMC and (b) HPH, and M = MMSE, C = CDRSB, A = ADAS-Cog/memory in (c) ADNI. Full retains all indices and − All masks every index. Hatching marks conditions in which MMSE is masked. Exact values are in Appendix A.11 (AMC) and A.10 (ADNI).
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Clinical Index
Range
Tolerance ( δ )
MMSE
0–30
±2
CDRSB
0–18
±1.0
ADAS-Cog 11
0–70
±5
ADAS-Cog 13
0–85
±6
ADAS-Cog Q4
0–10
±1
RAVLT (Learning)
-20–20
±3
Appendix
Table 8: Tolerance Thresholds for ADNI Indices. Error margins ( δ ) were scaled proportionally to the range of each metric.
Figure 11: Time Gap Distribution by Cohort (Test Sets). The histograms show the interval between the last available clinical note and the diagnosis date across three cohorts. Intervals ≥ 18 months are consolidated into a single > 18m bucket. The AMC and HPH cohorts are concentrated in shorter intervals (6–18m), reflecting relatively dense clinical follow-up prior to diagnosis. In contrast, the ADNI cohort displays a substantially larger proportion of long-term samples ( > 18m), reflecting the longitudinal nature of MCI progression monitoring.
Figure 12: Multi-dimensional Performance Profile (AMC). Radar chart combining Stage 1 clinical index accuracy (MMSE, GDS, CDR) and Stage 2 dementia prognosis (F1, AUROC, AUPRC). Dementia-R1 achieves the most balanced profile overall.
Figure 13: Multi-dimensional Performance Profile (HPH). Radar chart combining Stage 1 clinical index accuracy (MMSE, GDS) and Stage 2 PDD prognosis (F1, AUROC, AUPRC). Dementia-R1 dominates on all prognosis metrics.
Model Method
Size
MMSE
GDS
CDR
Average
External LLMs
HuatuoGPT-o1
8B
44.3 ± 0.5
36.9 ± 2.5
43.7 ± 8.7
41.1 ± 0.6
MedGemma
27B
52.4 ± 0.3
44.2 ± 0.5
42.3 ± 2.1
47.8 ± 0.3
Qwen2.5-7B-Inst
7B
53.1 ± 1.6
49.4 ± 1.2
58.3 ± 3.2
52.1 ± 1.5
Qwen2.5-32B-Inst
32B
55.2 ± 1.2
48.3 ± 2.2
69.0 ± 3.6
53.9 ± 0.2
Qwen2.5-72B-Inst
72B
56.1 ± 1.3
52.4 ± 1.8
71.0 ± 1.0
56.3 ± 1.0
Appendix
Table 10: Performance on Clinical Index Prediction for the AMC cohort. We evaluate the accuracy of predicting MMSE, GDS, and CDR scores. Bold / underline = best/second-best. Mean ± std over 3 seeds.
Model Method
Size
MMSE
GDS
Average
External LLMs
HuatuoGPT-o1
8B
40.5 ± 4.3
26.3 ± 1.0
33.4 ± 1.7
MedGemma
27B
43.7 ± 1.9
32.1 ± 1.0
37.9 ± 0.9
Qwen2.5-7B-Inst
7B
48.4 ± 2.1
35.5 ± 1.2
41.9 ± 0.5
Qwen2.5-32B-Inst
32B
49.0 ± 0.9
36.1 ± 0.6
42.6 ± 0.2
Qwen2.5-72B-Inst
72B
49.9 ± 2.6
40.6 ± 1.6
45.2 ± 1.2
Appendix
Table 11: Performance on Clinical Index Prediction for the HPH cohort. MMSE and GDS accuracy. Bold / underline = best/second-best. Mean ± std over 3 seeds.
Clinical Index
Slots
Accuracy (%)
MMSE
200
97.5
GDS
200
98.5
CDR
200
99.5
Overall
600
98.5
Appendix
Table 25: LLM Extraction Audit Results (Initial). Slot-level accuracy of the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct extractor on 200 randomly sampled clinical notes (600 total slots).
Error type
Count
Description
Fabrication
3
A value is extracted although only the index keyword appears in the note.
False negative
4
The value is missed because it falls outside the extraction boundary window.
Misattribution
4
An overloaded abbreviation is resolved to the wrong scale (e.g., “GDS” as Geriatric Depression Scale rather than Global Deterioration Scale).
Total
11
Appendix
Table 27: Error Type Breakdown (Expanded Audit). The 11 extraction errors are case-level random errors rather than a systematic, directional bias.
Injected noise
Best dementia AUROC
Δ vs. 0%
0%
0.7945
—
30%
0.7926
−0.19 pp
50%
0.7929
−0.16 pp
70%
0.7902
−0.43 pp
Appendix
Table 28: Downstream Robustness to Stage 1 Extraction Noise. Best dementia AUROC after injecting above-tolerance noise into the Stage 1 clinical indices.
Figure 14: Clinical Index Distribution (AMC Test Set). Number of MMSE, GDS, and CDR measurements per patient. CDR annotations are substantially sparser than MMSE and GDS.
Target
AMC
HPH
All (combined)
79.68
70.76
MMSE
78.82
69.95
GDS
81.03
70.88
CDR
78.88
–
Appendix
Table 30: Pretraining Target Ablation. Overall AUROC (%) when Stage 1 uses individual vs. combined targets. Best per cohort in bold .
Figure 15: Temporal Density Ablation. Overall AUROC at varying measurement density levels across three cohorts. (a) AMC: 0/50/100%; (b) HPH: 0/100%; (c) ADNI: 25/50/75/100%. Performance degrades monotonically with reduced density.
Figure 16: Example of longitudinal clinical notes. To protect patient privacy, all personal identifiers (e.g., names) were removed, and dates were randomly shifted.
Figure 17: A comparison of the reasoning processes generated by Dementia-R1 and the Qwen2.5-32B for the clinical case shown in Figure 16 . While Dementia-R1 produces a structured and grounded rationale, the baseline generates a dense narrative containing medical hallucinations.
Figure 18: Example of longitudinal clinical notes from the HPH cohort for PDD prediction. Unlike the AMC cohort’s SOAP-format notes, HPH records consist of structured fields (S/O/A/P) combined with separate clinical index records, autonomic tests, neuroimaging, gait analysis, and motor symptom descriptions. To protect patient privacy, all personal identifiers were removed, and dates were randomly shifted.
Figure 19: A comparison of the reasoning processes generated by Dementia-R1 and Qwen2.5-32B for the HPH clinical case shown in Figure 18 . Both models correctly predict non-progression to PDD, but Dementia-R1 provides a more structured analysis that systematically separates cognitive, functional, and motor assessments, while the baseline produces a less organized narrative.
Figure 20: Pre-training prompt template for the AMC dataset. While MMSE is shown as an example, the model is pre-trained to predict various global cognitive scores, including GDS and CDR , based on unstructured clinical notes.
Figure 21: Pre-training prompt template for the ADNI dataset. The model predicts future indicators (e.g., MMSE, CDRSB) by analyzing longitudinal structured assessment data. The input includes a variable glossary to assist in interpreting clinical indicators.
Figure 22: Fine-tuning prompt template for the AMC dataset. The task requires detecting dementia presence based on unstructured clinical notes and integrated scoring indicators.
Figure 23: Fine-tuning prompt template for the HPH dataset. The task requires predicting Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) progression based on longitudinal clinical notes including cognitive assessments, motor symptoms, and gait analysis.
Figure 24: Fine-tuning prompt template for the ADNI dataset. The model predicts MCI-to-dementia conversion using longitudinal trends of clinical indices and biomarkers.
Figure 25: Prompt template for generating diagnostic rationales for Supervised Fine-Tuning.
Dementia diagnosis requires integrating multi-modal clinical assessments from diverse informants and clinicians under incomplete and heterogeneous data conditions. Yet most AI-driven approaches remain Alzheimer's disease (AD)-centric, framing the problem as binary AD detection or three-stage AD progression modeling within well-curated research settings. This pathology-driven paradigm overlooks the broader, syndrome-level nature of dementia, which spans multiple stages, phenotypes, and etiologies. In this paper, we propose Dementia-Agents, a clinically aligned multi-agent framework for real-world dementia staging and phenotyping. The framework follows a three-step workflow: (1) a data agent translates structured clinical records into semantically faithful textual representations that preserve missing-data signals and routes them to domain-aligned experts; (2) five fine-tuned expert agents generate domain-level predictions; and (3) a coordinator agent performs probabilistic aggregation to produce final staging and phenotyping decisions. We develop and evaluate Dementia-Agents on a real-world clinical cohort of 1,066 patients from two cognitive neurology services. Compared with monolithic multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) and prior medical multi-agent systems, our approach achieves consistent improvements in diagnostic performance for real-world syndrome-level dementia staging and phenotyping, while preserving domain-level interpretability.
Yaling Shen, Maja Christensen, Yiwen Jiang +4
Monash University · Eastern Health · Lived Experience Advisor
Modern clinical practice increasingly depends on reasoning over heterogeneous, evolving, and incomplete patient data. Although recent advances in multimodal foundation models have improved performance on various clinical tasks, most existing models remain static, opaque, and poorly aligned with real-world clinical workflows. We present Cerebra, an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis. These outputs are synthesized into a clinician-facing dashboard that combines visual analytics with a conversational interface, enabling clinicians to interrogate predictions and contextualize risk at the point of care. Cerebra supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete. We evaluated Cerebra using a massive multi-institutional dataset spanning 3 million patients from four independent healthcare systems. Cerebra consistently outperformed both state-of-the-art single-modality models and large multimodal language model baselines. In dementia risk prediction, it achieved AUROCs up to 0.80, compared with 0.74 for the strongest single-modality model and 0.68 for language model baselines. For dementia diagnosis, it achieved an AUROC of 0.86, and for survival prediction, a C-index of 0.81. In a reader study with experienced physicians, Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation. These results demonstrate Cerebra's potential for interpretable, robust decision support in clinical care.
Sheng Liu, Long Chen, Zeyun Zhao +16
Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University · Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University · Center for Data Science, New York University +13
Longitudinal clinical notes contain rich evidence of how patients evolve over time, but converting this signal into training supervision for clinical prediction remains challenging. We extend Foresight Learning to clinical prediction by converting time-ordered MIMIC-III notes into examples consisting of past patient context, a natural-language question about a possible future event, and a label resolved from later documentation. This process yields 6,900 prediction examples from 702 admissions across medications, procedures, organ support, microbiology, and mortality. A small LoRA adapter trained on these examples improves over the prompted base model, reducing expected calibration error from 0.1269 to 0.0398 and Brier score from 0.199 to 0.145, while slightly outperforming GPT-5 point estimates on held-out questions. The approach enables reusable clinical prediction supervision from longitudinal notes without hand-engineered structured features or endpoint-specific classifiers.