ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Comparison of Claims-Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate identification of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in administrative data is increasingly important for research, care delivery innovation, and policy applications such as risk adjustment. Despite the widespread use of existing claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD, few studies have compared their use to ongoing longitudinal aging studies.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we included 2204 NHATS respondents aged 65 years or older classified as having dementia and enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare in 2019. We determined the performance characteristics of 3-claims-based dementia algorithms using NHATS as a reference standard.
resultsAmong NHATS respondents classified as having "probable" dementia, sensitivity was generally low (48.8%-70.5%), while specificity was high (91.5%-97.8%) across all 3 algorithms. The Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) algorithm had the highest sensitivity (70.5, 95% CI: 64.3-76.6), followed by Bynum-Standard 3-year (65.8, 95% CI: 59.6-71.9). Bynum-Standard 1-year had the highest PPV (65.6, 95% CI: 56.9-74.4). The Youden Index and F1 score were generally low and clustered closely across the three algorithms. Odds of ADRD misclassification differed across patient characteristics.
conclusionCommonly used claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD had reasonable validity, though each presented important context-dependent tradeoffs and none was uniformly superior. These findings highlight the importance of accurately diagnosing ADRD in clinical settings and of understanding each algorithm's strengths and limitations based on the use case. Limitations include that NHATS is not a "gold standard" for comparison of claims-based algorithms and we only analyzed NHATS respondents in a single year.
Indexed as
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.