Dementia risk prediction: A comparative analysis of the ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 indices in the HUNT study.

IF 7.8 Q2 BUSINESS
Josephine Stubs, Ellen Melbye Langballe, Gill Livingston, Kaarin J Anstey, Kay Deckers, Fiona E Mathews, Mika Kivimäki, Bjørn Heine Strand, Anne-Marie Rokstad, Steinar Krokstad, Geir Selbæk
{"title":"Dementia risk prediction: A comparative analysis of the ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 indices in the HUNT study.","authors":"Josephine Stubs, Ellen Melbye Langballe, Gill Livingston, Kaarin J Anstey, Kay Deckers, Fiona E Mathews, Mika Kivimäki, Bjørn Heine Strand, Anne-Marie Rokstad, Steinar Krokstad, Geir Selbæk","doi":"10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objective: </strong>Dementia is a major global health concern, necessitating effective risk assessment tools and early intervention. This study compared the performance of five modifiable dementia risk indices - ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 and a \"demographics-only\" (age, education) model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from 5247 Norwegian participants in the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4 70+, 2017-2019) and dementia risk indices from baseline data in HUNT3 (2006-2008). Logistic regression models assessed associations between standardized index scores and all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) across age group (<65 vs. ≥65 years), sex, and APOE4 status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the mean follow-up of 10.6 (9.3-12.3) years (SD=0.74), all indices significantly predicted dementia and AD, though none outperformed the demographics-only model. CogDrisk showed significantly better discriminative ability than all other indices (0.76, 95 % CI:0.74-0.78; DeLong p < 0.05), followed by LIBRA (0.75, 95 % CI:0.72-0.77) and ANU-ADRI (0.74, 95 % CI:0.72-0.76). LIBRA2 (0.69, 95 % CI:0.66-0.71) and CAIDE (0.59, 95 % CI:0.56-0.61) had significantly lower accuracy (DeLong p < 0.001). Removing demographics maintained rank order but reduced accuracy across all indices. Stratified analyses showed stronger performance in those ≥65 years and females at HUNT3, while APOE4 status did not affect performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All indices were associated with dementia risk, with CogDrisk performing best across all conditions, and LIBRA2 and CAIDE performing weakest. No index outperformed a model including age and education only. Future research should refine risk indices for age- and sex-specific applications and assess whether simpler demographic models may suffice in some contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":22711,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"100326"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12501341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objective: Dementia is a major global health concern, necessitating effective risk assessment tools and early intervention. This study compared the performance of five modifiable dementia risk indices - ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 and a "demographics-only" (age, education) model.

Methods: We analyzed data from 5247 Norwegian participants in the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4 70+, 2017-2019) and dementia risk indices from baseline data in HUNT3 (2006-2008). Logistic regression models assessed associations between standardized index scores and all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) across age group (<65 vs. ≥65 years), sex, and APOE4 status.

Results: During the mean follow-up of 10.6 (9.3-12.3) years (SD=0.74), all indices significantly predicted dementia and AD, though none outperformed the demographics-only model. CogDrisk showed significantly better discriminative ability than all other indices (0.76, 95 % CI:0.74-0.78; DeLong p < 0.05), followed by LIBRA (0.75, 95 % CI:0.72-0.77) and ANU-ADRI (0.74, 95 % CI:0.72-0.76). LIBRA2 (0.69, 95 % CI:0.66-0.71) and CAIDE (0.59, 95 % CI:0.56-0.61) had significantly lower accuracy (DeLong p < 0.001). Removing demographics maintained rank order but reduced accuracy across all indices. Stratified analyses showed stronger performance in those ≥65 years and females at HUNT3, while APOE4 status did not affect performance.

Conclusion: All indices were associated with dementia risk, with CogDrisk performing best across all conditions, and LIBRA2 and CAIDE performing weakest. No index outperformed a model including age and education only. Future research should refine risk indices for age- and sex-specific applications and assess whether simpler demographic models may suffice in some contexts.

Abstract Image

痴呆风险预测:HUNT研究中ANU-ADRI、CAIDE、cogrisk、LIBRA和LIBRA2指数的比较分析
背景/目的:痴呆症是一个主要的全球健康问题,需要有效的风险评估工具和早期干预。本研究比较了五种可修改的痴呆风险指数——ANU-ADRI、CAIDE、cogrisk、LIBRA和LIBRA2的表现,以及“仅人口统计学”(年龄、教育)模型。方法:我们分析了Trøndelag健康研究(HUNT4 70+, 2017-2019)中5247名挪威参与者的数据,以及HUNT3(2006-2008)基线数据中的痴呆风险指数。Logistic回归模型评估了标准化指标得分与各年龄组全因痴呆和阿尔茨海默病(AD)之间的关系(结果:在平均10.6(9.3-12.3)年的随访期间(SD=0.74),所有指标都能显著预测痴呆和AD,但没有一个指标优于人口统计学模型。cogrisk (0.76, 95% CI:0.74 ~ 0.78; DeLong p < 0.05)、LIBRA (0.75, 95% CI:0.72 ~ 0.77)、ANU-ADRI (0.74, 95% CI:0.72 ~ 0.76)的判别能力显著高于其他指标(0.76 ~ 0.78)。LIBRA2 (0.69, 95% CI:0.66-0.71)和CAIDE (0.59, 95% CI:0.56-0.61)的准确率明显较低(DeLong p < 0.001)。删除人口统计数据保持了排名顺序,但降低了所有指数的准确性。分层分析显示≥65岁的患者和女性在HUNT3的表现更强,而APOE4状态不影响表现。结论:所有指标均与痴呆风险相关,cogrisk在所有条件下表现最佳,LIBRA2和CAIDE表现最差。没有一个指标比只考虑年龄和教育程度的模型表现更好。未来的研究应该为特定年龄和性别的应用改进风险指数,并评估简单的人口统计模型在某些情况下是否足够。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The JPAD Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’Disease will publish reviews, original research articles and short reports to improve our knowledge in the field of Alzheimer prevention including: neurosciences, biomarkers, imaging, epidemiology, public health, physical cognitive exercise, nutrition, risk and protective factors, drug development, trials design, and heath economic outcomes.JPAD will publish also the meeting abstracts from Clinical Trial on Alzheimer Disease (CTAD) and will be distributed both in paper and online version worldwide.We hope that JPAD with your contribution will play a role in the development of Alzheimer prevention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信