MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406197044 · doi:10.1002/alz.094615

Annual Wellness Visits and Early Dementia Diagnosis Among Older Adults Receiving Medicare Benefits

2024· article· en· W4406197044 on OpenAlexaff
Huey‐Ming Tzeng, Mukaila Raji, Yong Shan, Peter Cram, Yong Fang Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyMedicineDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Early recognition of cognitive impairment (CI) and timely diagnoses of mild CI (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD) are key to optimal dementia care. No previous research has examined the effects of Medicare annual wellness visits (AWVs) on early CI recognition among Medicare beneficiaries. Here, we assessed the association between incident diagnosis at MCI, moderate or severe ADRD stages in 2017‐2020, and having a Medicare AWV in the three years prior to diagnosis. Method This population‐based, case‐control study used 100% Texas fee‐for‐service Medicare data from 2014 to 2020; population: Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with incident MCI or ADRD from 2017 to 2020. The exposure is Medicare AWVs. The primary outcome is MCI, moderate or severe ADRD status by ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM codes. We performed a multinomial logistic regression model to examine the association. Result Medicare beneficiaries (n = 197,356) who had an AWV were 23‐66% more likely to be diagnosed at the MCI stage and 8‐30% more likely to be diagnosed at the moderate ADRD stage compared to diagnoses at the severe ADRD stage relative to those who did not have an AWV. There was a dose‐response relationship; as the number of AWV visits in the three years increased, the magnitude of the likelihood of early diagnosis increased. Conclusion This study suggests that receipt of a Medicare AWV is associated with increased identification of early CI.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207