ArticleBMC psychiatry2023
Identifying dementia using medical data linkage in a longitudinal cohort study: Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epigenetic scores of blood-based proteins as biomarkers of general cognitive function and brain health.Clinical epigenetics · 2024Pooled it
- Cognitive dedifferentiation in later life: longitudinal findings from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026Article
- Effect sizes of APOE e4 on the same general cognitive ability test taken by the same people from age 11 to age 90: The Lothian Birth Cohorts 1921 and 1936.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Measurement characteristics and genome-wide correlates of lifetime brain atrophy estimated from a single MRI.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Life-course exposure to air pollution and the risk of dementia in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Lessons we learned from the Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936.Genomic psychiatry : advancing science from genes to society · 2025Article
- DNAm scores for serum GDF15 and NT-proBNP levels associate with a range of traits affecting the body and brain.Clinical epigenetics · 2024Article
- Performance of probable dementia classification in a European multi-country survey.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Motoric cognitive risk syndrome trajectories and incident dementia over 10 years.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936) is a longitudinal study of ageing with well-characterised assessments, but until now, it has relied on self-report or proxies for dementia such as cognitive tests. Our aims were twofold: a) to describe a framework for identifying dementia in a cohort study. b) to report the age-specific incidence and prevalence of all-cause dementia and dementia subtypes in 865 individuals in the LBC1936.
methodsElectronic Health Records (EHR) of all participants were reviewed, and relevant information was extracted to form case vignettes for everyone with any record of cognitive dysfunction. The EHR data sources include hospital and clinic letters, general practitioner and hospital referrals, prescribed medications, imaging and laboratory results. Death certificate data were obtained separately. Clinician assessments were performed when there was concern about a participant's cognition. A diagnosis of probable dementia, possible dementia, or no dementia was agreed upon by a consensus diagnostic review board, comprised of a multidisciplinary team of clinical dementia experts who reviewed case vignettes and clinician assessment letters. For those with probable dementia, a subtype was also determined, where possible. We compared the agreement between our newly ascertained dementia diagnoses with the existing self-reported dementia diagnoses.
resultsSelf-reported dementia diagnoses were positive in only 17.8% of ascertained dementia diagnoses. The EHR review identified 163/865 (18.8%) individuals as having cognitive dysfunction. At the consensus diagnostic review board, 118/163 were diagnosed with probable all-cause dementia, a prevalence of 13.6%. Age-specific dementia prevalence increased with age from 0.8% (65-74.9 years) to 9.93% (85-89.9 years). Prevalence rates for women were higher in nearly all age groups. The most common subtype was dementia due to Alzheimer disease (49.2%), followed by mixed Alzheimer and cerebrovascular disease (17.0%), dementia of unknown or unspecified cause (16.1%), and dementia due to vascular disease (8.5%).
conclusionsWe present a robust systematic framework and guide for other cohort teams wanting to ascertain dementia diagnoses. The newly ascertained dementia diagnosis provides vital data for further analyses of LBC1936 to allow exploration of lifecourse predictors of dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.