Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36496374›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2022

Modified dementia risk score as a tool for the prediction of dementia: a prospective cohort study of 239745 participants.

Zuo-Teng Wang, Yan Fu, Ya-Ru Zhang, Shi-Dong Chen, Shu-Yi Huang, Liu Yang, Hong-Qi Li, Ya-Nan Ou, Jian-Feng Feng, Qiang Dong and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zuo-Teng Wang *Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Yan Fu *Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Ya-Ru ZhangDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shi-Dong ChenDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shu-Yi HuangDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Liu YangDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hong-Qi LiDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ya-Nan OuDepartment of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jian-Feng FengInstitute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qiang DongDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3874-0130
Wei ChengInstitute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1118-1743
Lan TanDepartment of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. dr.tanlan@163.com.
Hui-Fu WangDepartment of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. wanghuifu2010@126.com.
Jin-Tai YuDepartment of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. jintai_yu@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-2532-383X
Fudan University · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on risk profiles, several approaches for predicting dementia risk have been developed. Predicting the risk of dementia with accuracy is a significant clinical challenge. The goal was to create a modified dementia risk score (MDRS) based on a big sample size. A total of 239,745 participants from UK Biobank were studied (mean follow-up of 8.7 years). The score value of each risk factor was estimated according to the β coefficient in the logistic regression model. The total dementia risk score was the sum of each risk score. Kaplan Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to assess the associations between total score and dementia. Among all participants included, 3531 incident cases of all-cause dementia (ACD), 1729 cases of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 925 cases of vascular dementia (VD) were identified. Several vascular risk factors (physical activity, current smoking status, and glycemic status) and depressive symptoms were found to be significantly related to dementia risk. The modified dementia risk scores predicted dementia well (model 1, area under curve 0.810; model 2, area under curve 0.832). In model 1, the cut-off value for high risk (HR) was 81 or higher, and in model 2 (including the APOE4), it was 98 or higher. According to Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, patients in the HR group had faster clinical progression (p < 0.0001) in either model 1 or 2. Cox regression analyses for HR versus low risk (LR) revealed that the Hazard radio for ACD was 7.541 (6.941 to 8.193) in model 1 and 8.348 (7.727 to 9.019) in model 2. MDRS is appropriate for dementia primary prevention, and may help quickly identify individuals with elevated risk of dementia.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseDementiaHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID36496374
PMCPMC9741578
OpenAlexW4311666194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.