Comparison of Claims‐Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study ( <scp>NHATS</scp> )

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in administrative data is increasingly important for research, care delivery innovation, and policy applications such as risk adjustment. Despite the widespread use of existing claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD, few studies have compared their use to ongoing longitudinal aging studies. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included 2204 NHATS respondents aged 65 years or older classified as having dementia and enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare in 2019. We determined the performance characteristics of 3-claims-based dementia algorithms using NHATS as a reference standard. RESULTS: Among NHATS respondents classified as having "probable" dementia, sensitivity was generally low (48.8%-70.5%), while specificity was high (91.5%-97.8%) across all 3 algorithms. The Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) algorithm had the highest sensitivity (70.5, 95% CI: 64.3-76.6), followed by Bynum-Standard 3-year (65.8, 95% CI: 59.6-71.9). Bynum-Standard 1-year had the highest PPV (65.6, 95% CI: 56.9-74.4). The Youden Index and F1 score were generally low and clustered closely across the three algorithms. Odds of ADRD misclassification differed across patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Commonly used claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD had reasonable validity, though each presented important context-dependent tradeoffs and none was uniformly superior. These findings highlight the importance of accurately diagnosing ADRD in clinical settings and of understanding each algorithm's strengths and limitations based on the use case. Limitations include that NHATS is not a "gold standard" for comparison of claims-based algorithms and we only analyzed NHATS respondents in a single year.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Published
2026-08-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70650
Primary Topic
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Claims‐Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study ( NHATS )

Katherine A. Ornstein, Emmanuel F. Drabo, Hanna Charankevich, Ravi Gupta et al.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
article

Comparison of Claims‐Based Algorithms for Dementia Identification: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study ( NHATS )

Katherine A. Ornstein, Emmanuel F. Drabo, Hanna Charankevich, Ravi Gupta, Teneil Brown, Daniel Polsky, Alden L. Gross, Jodi B. Segal
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in administrative data is increasingly important for research, care delivery innovation, and policy applications such as risk adjustment. Despite the widespread use of existing claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD, few studies have compared their use to ongoing longitudinal aging studies. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included 2204 NHATS respondents aged 65 years or older classified as having dementia and enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare in 2019. We determined the performance characteristics of 3-claims-based dementia algorithms using NHATS as a reference standard. RESULTS: Among NHATS respondents classified as having "probable" dementia, sensitivity was generally low (48.8%-70.5%), while specificity was high (91.5%-97.8%) across all 3 algorithms. The Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) algorithm had the highest sensitivity (70.5, 95% CI: 64.3-76.6), followed by Bynum-Standard 3-year (65.8, 95% CI: 59.6-71.9). Bynum-Standard 1-year had the highest PPV (65.6, 95% CI: 56.9-74.4). The Youden Index and F1 score were generally low and clustered closely across the three algorithms. Odds of ADRD misclassification differed across patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Commonly used claims-based algorithms to identify ADRD had reasonable validity, though each presented important context-dependent tradeoffs and none was uniformly superior. These findings highlight the importance of accurately diagnosing ADRD in clinical settings and of understanding each algorithm's strengths and limitations based on the use case. Limitations include that NHATS is not a "gold standard" for comparison of claims-based algorithms and we only analyzed NHATS respondents in a single year.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Johns Hopkins University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US), Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (US), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
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.