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
{"title":"Assessing Cognitive Impairment in the Health and Retirement Study Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project: Comparing a Diagnostic Algorithm With a Diagnostic Consensus Panel.","authors":"Madeline Farron, Lindsay H Ryan, Jennifer J Manly, Deborah A Levine, Brenda L Plassman, Bruno J Giordani, Richard N Jones, Kenneth M Langa","doi":"10.1177/08982643251335370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51385,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aging and Health","volume":" ","pages":"8982643251335370"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aging and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08982643251335370","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
在人群研究中,认知障碍的准确分类是一个挑战。目的比较一种诊断算法与临床共识小组的表现。2016年,健康与退休研究(HRS)实施了统一认知评估方案项目(HRS- hcap),以简化对选定的HRS参与者的认知评估。方法采用Manly-Jones HCAP诊断分类法将认知状态分为正常、轻度认知障碍(MCI)和痴呆。在这项分析中,一个由五名临床医生组成的共识小组审查了50例诊断不确定性很高的病例,每人审查了30例,对算法的分类不知情。分析采用未加权和加权科恩kappa (κ)评估诊断一致性。结果加权一致性为70%(35/50),不一致性以MCI病例居多。加权一致性为84%。未加权的κ为0.56 (95% CI 0.30-0.81),加权的κ为0.75 (95% CI 0.49-0.91),表明两种方法之间存在中度至实质性的一致。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Aging and Health is an interdisciplinary forum for the presentation of research findings and scholarly exchange in the area of aging and health. Manuscripts are sought that deal with social and behavioral factors related to health and aging. Disciplines represented include the behavioral and social sciences, public health, epidemiology, demography, health services research, nursing, social work, medicine, and related disciplines. Although preference is given to manuscripts presenting the findings of original research, review and methodological pieces will also be considered.