Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40235076›Full record

ArticleJournal of aging and health2026

Assessing Cognitive Impairment in the Health and Retirement Study Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project: Comparing a Diagnostic Algorithm With a Diagnostic Consensus Panel.

Madeline Farron, Lindsay H Ryan, Jennifer J Manly, Deborah A Levine, Brenda L Plassman, Bruno J Giordani, Richard N Jones, Kenneth M Langa

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of aging and health, 2026. 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. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Madeline FarronInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lindsay H RyanInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jennifer J ManlyDepartment of Neurology, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Deborah A LevineCognitive Health Sciences Research Program and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Brenda L PlassmanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Bruno J GiordaniDepartment of Psychiatry and Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Richard N JonesDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA.
Kenneth M LangaInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

HRS Yrs29-34: Y33 SSA CoFundingU01AG009740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Jessica Faul, KENNETH M LANGA · 1990 to 2026
$555.8M
Health and Retirement Study: Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP)U01AG058499 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANGA, KENNETH M · 2018 to 2023
$8.3M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG009740NIA NIH HHS U01 AG058499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging.ObjectiveTo compare the performance of a diagnostic algorithm with a clinical consensus panel.SampleIn 2016, the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) implemented the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project (HRS-HCAP) to streamline cognitive assessments for select HRS participants.MethodsThe Manly-Jones HCAP diagnostic classification was used to classify cognitive status as normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia. For this analysis, a consensus panel of five clinicians reviewed 50 cases with high diagnostic uncertainty, each reviewing 30 cases, blinded to the algorithm's classifications.AnalysisDiagnostic concordance was assessed using unweighted and weighted Cohen's kappa (κ).ResultsUnweighted concordance was 70% (35/50), with discordance mostly among MCI cases. Weighted concordance was 84%. Unweighted κ was 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-0.81) and weighted κ was 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-0.91), indicating moderate to substantial agreement between the two methods.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCognitive DysfunctionDementiaAgedAged, 80 and overConsensusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsRetirementagingcognitive impairmentdementiadiagnosispopulation-based studies

Identifiers

PMID40235076
PMCPMC12509085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.