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.
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.