Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42350980›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Methodological advances in claims-based dementia algorithms: integrating medication and clinical data for medicare populations.

Sara Knox, Janet Horn, Kit Simpson, Bethany Wolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sara KnoxDepartment of Health Sciences and Research, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, 77 President St, MSC 700, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. knoxsa@musc.edu.
Janet HornDepartment of Health Sciences and Research, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, 77 President St, MSC 700, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Kit SimpsonDepartment of Healthcare Leadership & Management, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, 151 Rutledge Ave, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Bethany WolfDepartment of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon St, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
Potential New Barriers to Home Health Access for People with Alzheimer's Disease and Related DementiasK01AG073538 · NIA · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI KNOX, SARA · 2021 to 2025
$689k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NIA NIH HHS K01 AG073538NIA NIH HHS K01AG073538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate identification of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) in Medicare data is essential for research, policy, and care planning. Existing approaches, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) algorithm, rely primarily on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes and are subject to misclassification and potential bias across populations.

methodsWe evaluated whether incorporating neuropsychiatric symptom (NPS) ICD-10 codes and medication data improves prediction of algorithm-defined ADRD classificaitons. We analyzed 269,214 Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services in 2019 using claims, assessment, and prescription drug files. Two classification algorithms were examined: (1) the CCW binary classification algorithm and (2) a clinically informed ADRD ternary classification algorithm (ADRD-highly likely, ADRD-possible, ADRD-unlikely). Predictive models were developed for each algorithm using stacked elastic net regression, incorporating demographics, healthcare utilization, psychiatric and cognitive indicators, and medication use. Models were trained on beneficiaries with definitive ADRD status and evaluated in an independent test set using area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Thresholds were selected to prioritize specificity (≥ 80%) while maximizing sensitivity.

resultsIn the test dataset, the CCW predictive model achieved an AUC of 0.863 for predicting CCW binary-defined ADRD status. The ADRD predictive model achieved a higher AUC of 0.906 when predicting ADRD ternary-defined classifications. Both models demonstrated strong discrimination for their respective outcomes, but performance characteristics differed. Among beneficiaries classified as ADRD-possible, the ADRD predictive model more frequently classified individuals as ADRD-negative, indicating a more conservative approach to ambiguous cases.

conclusionsIncorporating NPS codes and medication data improves prediction of algorithm-defined ADRD classifications, particularly among individuals with uncertain status. Models aligned with the ADRD ternary algorithm demonstrated more specific and conservative classification patterns, suggesting that integrating behavioral, cognitive, and medication data may enhance the validity of claims-based phenotyping. Further validations against clinical diagnosis are needed.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDementiaInsurance Claim ReviewMedicareAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseClassification AlgorithmsFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMalePrediction AlgorithmsUnited StatesAlzheimer’s disease and related dementiasDigital algorithmMedicarePredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID42350980
PMCPMC13573462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.