Performance of Claims-based Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Algorithms in Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Populations
Clicks: 3
ID: 329205
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #158 of 161 articles by views in the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 161 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence comparing the performance of claims-based dementia algorithms across Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service (FFS) populations remains limited. We evaluated the validity of two claims-based algorithms across MA and FFS populations. METHODS: We used nationally representative, linked National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS)-Medicare data to identify community-dwelling participants with continuous enrollment in MA or FFS during Round 7 (2017; n = 5,018), Round 9 (2019; n = 4,018), and Round 11 (2021-2022; n = 3,086). Using NHATS probable dementia as reference standard, we validated the Bynum-Standard and Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) dementia algorithms across three time points. RESULTS: Overall, both algorithms demonstrated comparable performance in MA and FFS populations, with high specificity (>97.9%) and negative predictive value [NPV] (>92.9%). The Bynum algorithm showed similar sensitivity between MA and FFS in Rounds 7 (30.2% vs. 29.1%) and 11 (25.6% vs. 23.9%), but lower sensitivity in MA for Round 9 (25.0% vs. 36.4%). Positive predictive value [PPV] was similar between MA (62.7%-70.6%) and FFS (62.1%-70.4%) across all rounds. The CCW algorithm demonstrated greater MA-FFS differences, with lower sensitivity in MA for Rounds 9 (30.8% vs. 46.9%) and 11 (35.0% vs. 49.3%) and similar sensitivity for Round 7 (40.4% vs. 42.2%). PPV varied across rounds in both MA and FFS [(Round 7: 76.3% vs. 71.2%) to (Round 11: 68.5% vs. 76.4%)]. Both algorithms identified participants with more severe dementia. CONCLUSION: Claims-based dementia algorithms demonstrate broadly consistent performance in MA and FFS populations, with high specificity and moderate PPV but comparable or lower sensitivity in MA, informing case ascertainment across Medicare plan type.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7213642020
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | You Wu, Chan Mi Park, Xiecheng Chen, Lan Luo, Eunji G Kim, Sandra M Shi, Dae Hyun Kim, Ellen P. McCarthy |
| Journal | the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/gerona/glag237
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.