Treffer: Assessing the 10/66 dementia classification algorithm for international comparative analyses with the United States.
Original Publication: Baltimore, School of Hygiene and Public Health of Johns Hopkins Univ.
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011 Jul;66 Suppl 1:i162-71. (PMID: 21743047)
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0247831. (PMID: 33661959)
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 4;368(14):1326-34. (PMID: 23550670)
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2021 Sep 05;7(1):e12204. (PMID: 34504942)
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000 Jun;15(6):521-31. (PMID: 10861918)
Epidemiology. 2020 Jan;31(1):126-133. (PMID: 31567393)
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;43(2):576-85. (PMID: 24671021)
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1996 Spring;10(1):31-9. (PMID: 8919494)
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24(4):705-8. (PMID: 3249772)
Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(4):181-91. (PMID: 16103729)
Lancet. 2003 Mar 15;361(9361):909-17. (PMID: 12648969)
Stat Med. 2012 Oct 15;31(23):2676-86. (PMID: 22307964)
Epidemiology. 2019 Mar;30(2):291-302. (PMID: 30461528)
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98. (PMID: 1202204)
Lancet Healthy Longev. 2023 Oct;4(10):e573-e583. (PMID: 37804847)
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;46(2):406-406i. (PMID: 27154633)
J Clin Psychol. 1996 Mar;52(2):191-6. (PMID: 8771447)
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Mar;14(3):271-279. (PMID: 29028481)
Neuroepidemiology. 2020;54(1):64-74. (PMID: 31563909)
Neuropsychology. 2023 Mar;37(3):247-257. (PMID: 35482625)
Neurology. 1994 Apr;44(4):609-14. (PMID: 8164812)
Weitere Informationen
Cross-national comparisons of dementia prevalence are essential for identifying unique determinants and cultural-specific risk factors, but methodological differences in dementia classification across countries hinder global comparisons. This study maps the 10/66 algorithm for dementia classification, widely used and validated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to the US Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS), the dementia sub-study of the Health and Retirement Study, and assesses its performance in ADAMS. We identified the subset of 10/66 algorithm items comparably measured in ADAMS, then used these items to retrain the 10/66 algorithm against the ADAMS clinical dementia diagnosis, using k-fold cross-validation to assess performance. We compared the modified 10/66 algorithm to 4 other dementia classification algorithms previously validated in ADAMS, both for overall dementia estimation as well as for estimating education gradients. The modified 10/66 algorithm had higher sensitivity (87%) and specificity (93%) than the comparison algorithms. All the algorithms overestimated the education gradient in dementia, although the modest ADAMS sample size precludes precise comparisons of education gradient accuracy. Overall, we found that the modified 10/66 algorithm performs well in classifying dementia status in the United States. Our results support the validity of risk factor comparisons between US and 10/66 LMIC dementia data sets. This article is part of a Special Collection on Cross-National Gerontology.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)