Computerized decision support to optimally funnel patients through the diagnostic pathway

Abstract Background The increasing dementia prevalence and potential introduction of disease‐modifying therapies (DMTs) highlight the need for efficient diagnostic pathways. Clear recommendations to guide the choice of diagnostic tests are lacking and may vary depending on different clinical scenarios. We used a data‐driven approach to identify efficient and effective stepwise diagnostic testing for three clinical scenarios: 1) syndrome diagnosis, 2) etiological diagnosis, 3) potential eligibility for DMT. Method We used data from two memory clinic cohorts (ADC, PredictND), including 504 patients with dementia (302 Alzheimer’s disease, 107 frontotemporal dementia, 35 vascular dementia, 60 dementia with Lewy bodies), 191 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 188 cognitively healthy controls (CN). Tests included digital cognitive screening (cCOG), neuropsychological and functional assessment (NP), MRI with automated quantification, and CSF biomarkers. Sequential testing followed a predetermined order (Figure 1). Subsequent tests were conducted if the diagnosis remained uncertain. Diagnostic certainty was ascertained through a data‐driven clinical decision support system (CDSS) that generated a disease state index probability score (DSI, 0‐1), indicating the probability of each diagnosis. Diagnosis was confirmed if the DSI exceeded a predefined threshold, set based on sensitivity/specificity cutoffs relevant for each clinical scenario and step. We assessed correct diagnoses and the need for additional testing at each step. Result For syndrome diagnosis, stepwise testing (cCOG, NP, MRI) accurately identified 71% of the patients, with NP needed in 42%, and MRI in 31%. For etiological diagnosis, starting with cognitive testing to rule out dementia resulted in the need for MRI in 84% of cases, including 91% of dementia patients and 25% CN. Subsequent MRI reduced CSF required to 29%, ultimately diagnosing 81% of patients with 71% accuracy. In determining DMT eligibility, stepwise testing (cCOG, NP, MRI) correctly identified 91% of potential eligible patients for confirmatory CSF testing, while only 51% of ineligible patients. Conclusion Depending on the setting, alternative diagnostic pathways are accurate and efficient. As such, a data‐driven tool can assist clinicians in selecting tests of added value across different clinical contexts. This becomes especially important with DMT availability, where the need for more efficient diagnostic pathways is crucial to maintain accessibility and affordability of diagnoses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.091318
Primary Topic
Medical Coding and Health Information
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Computerized decision support to optimally funnel patients through the diagnostic pathway

Juha Koikkalainen, Argonde C. van Harten, Patrizia Mecocci, Hanneke F.M. Rhodius‐ Meester et al.
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Medical Coding and Health Information
article

Computerized decision support to optimally funnel patients through the diagnostic pathway

Juha Koikkalainen, Argonde C. van Harten, Patrizia Mecocci, Hanneke F.M. Rhodius‐ Meester, Afina W. Lemstra, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Aniek M. van Gils, Steen Gregers Hasselbalch, Antti Tolonen, Sanna‐Kaisa Herukka, Frederik Barkhof, Jyrki Lötjönen, Charlotte Elisabeth Teunissen, Hilkka Soininen, Anne M. Remes
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background The increasing dementia prevalence and potential introduction of disease‐modifying therapies (DMTs) highlight the need for efficient diagnostic pathways. Clear recommendations to guide the choice of diagnostic tests are lacking and may vary depending on different clinical scenarios. We used a data‐driven approach to identify efficient and effective stepwise diagnostic testing for three clinical scenarios: 1) syndrome diagnosis, 2) etiological diagnosis, 3) potential eligibility for DMT. Method We used data from two memory clinic cohorts (ADC, PredictND), including 504 patients with dementia (302 Alzheimer’s disease, 107 frontotemporal dementia, 35 vascular dementia, 60 dementia with Lewy bodies), 191 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 188 cognitively healthy controls (CN). Tests included digital cognitive screening (cCOG), neuropsychological and functional assessment (NP), MRI with automated quantification, and CSF biomarkers. Sequential testing followed a predetermined order (Figure 1). Subsequent tests were conducted if the diagnosis remained uncertain. Diagnostic certainty was ascertained through a data‐driven clinical decision support system (CDSS) that generated a disease state index probability score (DSI, 0‐1), indicating the probability of each diagnosis. Diagnosis was confirmed if the DSI exceeded a predefined threshold, set based on sensitivity/specificity cutoffs relevant for each clinical scenario and step. We assessed correct diagnoses and the need for additional testing at each step. Result For syndrome diagnosis, stepwise testing (cCOG, NP, MRI) accurately identified 71% of the patients, with NP needed in 42%, and MRI in 31%. For etiological diagnosis, starting with cognitive testing to rule out dementia resulted in the need for MRI in 84% of cases, including 91% of dementia patients and 25% CN. Subsequent MRI reduced CSF required to 29%, ultimately diagnosing 81% of patients with 71% accuracy. In determining DMT eligibility, stepwise testing (cCOG, NP, MRI) correctly identified 91% of potential eligible patients for confirmatory CSF testing, while only 51% of ineligible patients. Conclusion Depending on the setting, alternative diagnostic pathways are accurate and efficient. As such, a data‐driven tool can assist clinicians in selecting tests of added value across different clinical contexts. This becomes especially important with DMT availability, where the need for more efficient diagnostic pathways is crucial to maintain accessibility and affordability of diagnoses.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 20(S2)
Oslo University Hospital (NO), University of Eastern Finland (FI), University of Perugia (IT), Copenhagen University Hospital (DK), Rigshospitalet (DK), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), University College London (GB), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), University of Oulu (FI)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Medical Coding and Health Information
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.