ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2026
Identification of prevalent dementia in Medicare Advantage encounters, compared with rigorous cohort assessments.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid growth in Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment has spurred dementia research using diagnoses in MA encounter data. However, the validity of MA-encounter-based dementia diagnoses is uncertain.
methodsUsing four cohort studies at the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center linked to Medicare data from 2017-19, we validated prevalent dementia indicators in MA encounter data, based on the Bynum-Standard algorithm, against dementia status determined by rigorous cognitive assessment in the cohort studies. We replicated analyses among participants in Traditional Medicare (TM).
resultsOf the 508 eligible MA enrollees, mean age was 82.8 (SD = 7.2) years, 81% were female, and 49% were non-Latino White; 62 participants (12%) were classified as having dementia by the cohort assessment. MA-encounter-based dementia indicators performed reasonably well in identifying participants with cohort-assessed dementia: using encounters alone, positive predictive value was 63% (95% CI: 52%-75%), negative predictive value was 96% (95% CI: 94%-98%), and accuracy was 92% (95% CI: 89%-94%). Inclusion of chart reviews did not impact performance. Compared to TM-based indicators during the same period, MA-based indicators yielded similar validity metrics but identified a less functionally impaired group as having dementia. In secondary validation analysis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), sensitivity was low.
conclusionsAs one of the first studies to validate dementia diagnoses in MA encounter data, indicators based on the Bynum-Standard algorithm can be a valid tool for identifying prevalent dementia. Findings support the use of MA-encounter-based dementia indicators for research within MA. However, observed health differences between MA- and TM-identified dementia groups suggest potential for selection bias in MA plans.
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.