ArticleSSM - population health2025
Co-calibration of cognitive performance in the National Health and Aging Trends Study with the Health and Retirement Study's Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol: Implications for dementia classification.
Article in SSM - population health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trajectories of late-life job insecurity and labor force participation: Associations with cognitive function and impairment in the Health and Retirement Study's harmonized cognitive assessment protocol.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Gaps in Population Life Course Phenotype Trajectories Underlying Major Noncommunicable Diseases: A Scoping Review.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Prevalence and predictors of diagnosed mild cognitive impairment among Medicare beneficiaries.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Large population-based studies are crucial for dementia research; yet variation in cognitive tests and dementia classification approaches can lead to inconsistent findings. We harmonized cognitive data from two nationally representative US studies of aging to facilitate comparisons. Methods: We examined 2016 data for individuals aged ≥70 years from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) (n = 5696) and the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (n = 2731). We derived factor scores for general cognitive performance in the NHATS cognitive test battery that were co-calibrated to the HRS-HCAP battery and identified cutpoints for dementia that returned the expected prevalence in each study. We evaluated diagnostic characteristics of the cutpoints against study-specific dementia algorithms with Area Under the Curve analysis. Results: Study-specific algorithms yielded comparable dementia prevalence estimates: 10.8 % in NHATS and 11.1 % in HRS-HCAP. Co-calibrated scores showed similar distributions and had acceptable reliability, with similar dementia cutpoints. In both studies, sensitivity was higher among lower-educated (vs. higher educated) and non-White (vs. non-Hispanic White) groups. Co-calibrated populations with dementia in both studies had similar age and gender distributions but differed somewhat in education levels and race/ethnicity profiles. Conclusions: NHATS and HRS-HCAP both provide reliable cognitive function measures and dementia prevalence estimates for older Americans. Co-calibrated scores based on each study's cognitive test battery provide a valid and feasible approach for comparative US research. Better aligned algorithmic approaches across studies could strengthen opportunities for comparative studies of disparities in the US context using the co-calibration approach.
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.