Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587679›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2024

Computerized decision support to optimally funnel patients through the diagnostic pathway for dementia.

Aniek M van Gils, Antti Tolonen, Argonde C van Harten, Sinthujah Vigneswaran, Frederik Barkhof, Leonie N C Visser, Juha Koikkalainen, Sanna-Kaisa Herukka, Steen Gregers Hasselbalch, Patrizia Mecocci and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Adaptive cascading artificial intelligence for Alzheimer's disease assessment: a clinically oriented narrative review and implementation framework.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

18 authors.

Aniek M van GilsAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands. a.vangils@amsterdamumc.nl.
Antti TolonenCombinostics Ltd, Tampere, Finland.
Argonde C van HartenAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.
Sinthujah VigneswaranAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, 1081HV, The Netherlands.
Leonie N C VisserAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.
Juha KoikkalainenCombinostics Ltd, Tampere, Finland.
Sanna-Kaisa HerukkaInstitute of Clinical Medicine/Neurology, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Steen Gregers HasselbalchDanish Dementia Research Centre, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, RigshospitaletCopenhagen, Denmark.
Patrizia MecocciDivision of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Piazzale Gambuli 1, 06129, Perugia, Italy.
Anne M RemesResearch Unit of Clinical Medicine, Neurology, University of Oulu, 90014, Oulu, Finland.
Hilkka SoininenInstitute of Clinical Medicine/Neurology, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Afina W LemstraAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.
Charlotte E TeunissenDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Neurochemistry Laboratory, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, 1081HV, The Netherlands.
Linus JönssonDivision of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jyrki LötjönenCombinostics Ltd, Tampere, Finland.
Wiesje M van der FlierAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.
Hanneke F M Rhodius-MeesterAlzheimer Center Amsterdam and Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands.

Funding

Alzheimer Nederland N.A. (travel grant)Alzheimer Nederland WE.08-2022-06Horizon 2022 101112145Innovative Health Initiative 101132933ZonMw ABOARD, 73305095007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of dementia and the introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) highlight the need for efficient diagnostic pathways in memory clinics. We present a data-driven approach to efficiently guide stepwise diagnostic testing for three clinical scenarios: 1) syndrome diagnosis, 2) etiological diagnosis, and 3) eligibility for DMT.

methodsWe used data from two memory clinic cohorts (ADC, PredictND), including 504 patients with dementia (302 Alzheimer's disease, 107 frontotemporal dementia, 35 vascular dementia, 60 dementia with Lewy bodies), 191 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 188 cognitively normal controls (CN). Tests included digital cognitive screening (cCOG), neuropsychological and functional assessment (NP), MRI with automated quantification, and CSF biomarkers. Sequential testing followed a predetermined order, guided by diagnostic certainty. Diagnostic certainty was determined using a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that generates a disease state index (DSI, 0-1), indicating the probability of the syndrome diagnosis or underlying etiology. Diagnosis was confirmed if the DSI exceeded a predefined threshold based on sensitivity/specificity cutoffs relevant to each clinical scenario. Diagnostic accuracy and the need for additional testing were assessed at each step.

resultsUsing cCOG as a prescreener for 1) syndrome diagnosis has the potential to accurately reduce the need for extensive NP (42%), resulting in syndrome diagnosis in all patients, with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.71, which was comparable to using NP alone. For 2) etiological diagnosis, stepwise testing resulted in an etiological diagnosis in 80% of patients with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.77, with MRI needed in 77%, and CSF in 37%. When 3) determining DMT eligibility, stepwise testing (100% cCOG, 83% NP, 75% MRI) selected 60% of the patients for confirmatory CSF testing and eventually identified 90% of the potentially eligible patients with AD dementia.

conclusionsDifferent diagnostic pathways are accurate and efficient depending on the setting. As such, a data-driven tool holds promise for assisting clinicians in selecting tests of added value across different clinical contexts. This becomes especially important with DMT availability, where the need for more efficient diagnostic pathways is crucial to maintain the accessibility and affordability of dementia diagnoses.

Indexed as

DementiaMagnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersCognitive DysfunctionCohort StudiesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsBiomarkersAlzheimer’s diseaseData-driven diagnosisDifferential diagnosisEligibility

Identifiers

PMID39587679
PMCPMC11590510

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.