Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37310738›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Estimating Dementia Risk Using Multifactorial Prediction Models.

Mika Kivimäki, Gill Livingston, Archana Singh-Manoux, Nina Mars, Joni V Lindbohm, Jaana Pentti, Solja T Nyberg, Matti Pirinen, Emma L Anderson, Aroon D Hingorani and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Prediction of Episodic Memory With Multiomics Scores.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Mika KivimäkiDepartment of Mental Health of Older People, UCL Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gill LivingstonDepartment of Mental Health of Older People, UCL Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Archana Singh-ManouxDepartment of Mental Health of Older People, UCL Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nina MarsInstitute for Molecular Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Joni V LindbohmDepartment of Mental Health of Older People, UCL Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jaana PenttiClinicum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Solja T NybergClinicum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Matti PirinenClinicum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Emma L AndersonDepartment of Mental Health of Older People, UCL Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aroon D HingoraniInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Pyry N SipiläClinicum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University College London · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FIBroad Institute · USStatistics Finland · FIUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Education, socioeconomic status and Aging: transitions from multimorbidity to functional limitations and mortalityR01AG056477 · NIA · UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON · PI KIVIMAKI, MIKA J, SINGH-MANOUX, ARCHANA · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
Medical Research Council MR/R024227/1Medical Research Council MR/S011676/1NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056477Wellcome Trust 221854/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The clinical value of current multifactorial algorithms for individualized assessment of dementia risk remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the clinical value associated with 4 widely used dementia risk scores in estimating 10-year dementia risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective population-based UK Biobank cohort study assessed 4 dementia risk scores at baseline (2006-2010) and ascertained incident dementia during the following 10 years. Replication with a 20-year follow-up was based on the British Whitehall II study. For both analyses, participants who had no dementia at baseline, had complete data on at least 1 dementia risk score, and were linked to electronic health records from hospitalizations or mortality were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 5, 2022, to April 20, 2023. Exposures: Four existing dementia risk scores: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE)-Clinical score, the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented score, the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI), and the Australian National University Alzheimer Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI). Main Outcomes and Measures: Dementia was ascertained from linked electronic health records. To evaluate how well each score predicted the 10-year risk of dementia, concordance (C) statistics, detection rate, false-positive rate, and the ratio of true to false positives were calculated for each risk score and for a model including age alone. Results: Of 465 929 UK Biobank participants without dementia at baseline (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; range, 38-73 years; 252 778 [54.3%] female participants), 3421 were diagnosed with dementia at follow-up (7.5 per 10 000 person-years). If the threshold for a positive test result was calibrated to achieve a 5% false-positive rate, all 4 risk scores detected 9% to 16% of incident dementia and therefore missed 84% to 91% (failure rate). The corresponding failure rate was 84% for a model that included age only. For a positive test result calibrated to detect at least half of future incident dementia, the ratio of true to false positives ranged between 1 to 66 (for CAIDE-APOE-supplemented) and 1 to 116 (for ANU-ADRI). For age alone, the ratio was 1 to 43. The C statistic was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.67) for the CAIDE clinical version, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) for the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.69) for BDSI, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.58-0.60) for ANU-ADRI, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) for age alone. Similar C statistics were seen for 20-year dementia risk in the Whitehall II study cohort, which included 4865 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [5.9] years; 1342 [27.6%] female participants). In a subgroup analysis of same-aged participants aged 65 (±1) years, discriminatory capacity of risk scores was low (C statistics between 0.52 and 0.60). Conclusions and Relevance: In these cohort studies, individualized assessments of dementia risk using existing risk prediction scores had high error rates. These findings suggest that the scores were of limited value in targeting people for dementia prevention. Further research is needed to develop more accurate algorithms for estimation of dementia risk.

Indexed as

AgingApolipoproteins EAustraliaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesApolipoproteins E

Identifiers

PMID37310738
PMCPMC10265307
OpenAlexW4380422060

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.