Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease Identified in Veterans in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic codes can be instrumental for case identification in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research; however, this method has known limitations and cannot distinguish between disease stages. Clinical notes may offer more detailed information including AD severity and can complement diagnostic codes for case identification. Objective: To estimate prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD using diagnostics codes and clinical notes available in the electronic healthcare record (EHR). Methods: This was a retrospective study in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VAHS). Health records from Veterans aged 65 years or older were reviewed during Fiscal Years (FY) 2010-2019. Overall, 274,736 and 469,569 Veterans were identified based on a rule-based algorithm as having at least one clinical note for MCI and AD, respectively; 201,211 and 149,779 Veterans had a diagnostic code for MCI and AD, respectively. During FY 2011-2018, likely MCI or AD diagnosis was defined by≥2 qualifiers (i.e., notes and/or codes)≥30 days apart. Veterans with only 1 qualifier were considered as suspected MCI/AD. Results: Over the 8-year study, 147,106 and 207,225 Veterans had likely MCI and AD, respectively. From 2011 to 2018, yearly MCI prevalence increased from 0.9% to 2.2%; yearly AD prevalence slightly decreased from 2.4% to 2.1%; mild AD changed from 22.9% to 26.8%, moderate AD changed from 26.5% to 29.1%, and severe AD changed from 24.6% to 30.7. Conclusions: The relative distribution of AD severities was stable over time. Accurate prevalence estimation is critical for healthcare resource allocation and facilitating patients receiving innovative medicines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".