科研速览 · Science Skim继续刷下去 · Keep skimming →
◆ Journal of the American Geriatrics Society2026-08-13

Comparison of Claims-Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).

Ravi Gupta, Hanna Charankevich, Emmanuel F Drabo, Teneil Brown, Alden L Gross, Daniel Polsky, Jodi B Segal, Katherine A Ornstein

一句话结论 · In one sentence

Commonly used claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD had reasonable validity, though each presented important context-dependent tradeoffs and none was uniformly superior. These findings highlight the importance of accurately diagnosing ADRD in clinical settings and of understanding each algorithm's strengths and limitations based on the use case. Limitations include that NHATS is not a "gold standard" for comparison of claims-based algorithms and we only analyzed NHATS respondents in a single year.

原始摘要(英文原文)· Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in administrative data is increasingly important for research, care delivery innovation, and policy applications such as risk adjustment. Despite the widespread use of existing claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD, few studies have compared their use to ongoing longitudinal aging studies. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included 2204 NHATS respondents aged 65 years or older classified as having dementia and enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare in 2019. We determined the performance characteristics of 3-claims-based dementia algorithms using NHATS as a reference standard. RESULTS: Among NHATS respondents classified as having "probable" dementia, sensitivity was generally low (48.8%-70.5%), while specificity was high (91.5%-97.8%) across all 3 algorithms. The Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) algorithm had the highest sensitivity (70.5, 95% CI: 64.3-76.6), followed by Bynum-Standard 3-year (65.8, 95% CI: 59.6-71.9). Bynum-Standard 1-year had the highest PPV (65.6, 95% CI: 56.9-74.4). The Youden Index and F1 score were generally low and clustered closely across the three algorithms. Odds of ADRD misclassification differed across patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Commonly used claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD had reasonable validity, though each presented important context-dependent tradeoffs and none was uniformly superior. These findings highlight the importance of accurately diagnosing ADRD in clinical settings and of understanding each algorithm's strengths and limitations based on the use case. Limitations include that NHATS is not a "gold standard" for comparison of claims-based algorithms and we only analyzed NHATS respondents in a single year.
读原文 · Read the paper ↗

AI 追问PRO

登录后使用 AI 追问

讨论区

登录后参与讨论

相关论文 · Related

Comparison of Claims-Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). — 科研速览 Science Skim