Development of Algorithmic Dementia Ascertainment for Racial/Ethnic Disparities Research in the US Health and Retirement Study.
Journal
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)
ISSN: 1531-5487
Titre abrégé: Epidemiology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9009644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
1
10
2019
medline:
18
3
2021
entrez:
1
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Disparities research in dementia is limited by lack of large, diverse, and representative samples with systematic dementia ascertainment. Algorithmic diagnosis of dementia offers a cost-effective alternate approach. Prior work in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study has demonstrated that existing algorithms are ill-suited for racial/ethnic disparities work given differences in sensitivity and specificity by race/ethnicity. We implemented traditional and machine learning methods to identify an improved algorithm that: (1) had ≤5 percentage point difference in sensitivity and specificity across racial/ethnic groups; (2) achieved ≥80% overall accuracy across racial/ethnic groups; and (3) achieved ≥75% sensitivity and ≥90% specificity overall. Final recommendations were based on robustness, accuracy of estimated race/ethnicity-specific prevalence and prevalence ratios compared to those using in-person diagnoses, and ease of use. We identified six algorithms that met our prespecified criteria. Our three recommended algorithms achieved ≤3 percentage point difference in sensitivity and ≤5 percentage point difference in specificity across racial/ethnic groups, as well as 77%-83% sensitivity, 92%-94% specificity, and 90%-92% accuracy overall in analyses designed to emulate out-of-sample performance. Pairwise prevalence ratios between non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics estimated by application of these algorithms are within 1%-10% of prevalence ratios estimated based on in-person diagnoses. We believe these algorithms will be of immense value to dementia researchers interested in racial/ethnic disparities. Our process can be replicated to allow minimally biasing algorithmic classification of dementia for other purposes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Disparities research in dementia is limited by lack of large, diverse, and representative samples with systematic dementia ascertainment. Algorithmic diagnosis of dementia offers a cost-effective alternate approach. Prior work in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study has demonstrated that existing algorithms are ill-suited for racial/ethnic disparities work given differences in sensitivity and specificity by race/ethnicity.
METHODS
We implemented traditional and machine learning methods to identify an improved algorithm that: (1) had ≤5 percentage point difference in sensitivity and specificity across racial/ethnic groups; (2) achieved ≥80% overall accuracy across racial/ethnic groups; and (3) achieved ≥75% sensitivity and ≥90% specificity overall. Final recommendations were based on robustness, accuracy of estimated race/ethnicity-specific prevalence and prevalence ratios compared to those using in-person diagnoses, and ease of use.
RESULTS
We identified six algorithms that met our prespecified criteria. Our three recommended algorithms achieved ≤3 percentage point difference in sensitivity and ≤5 percentage point difference in specificity across racial/ethnic groups, as well as 77%-83% sensitivity, 92%-94% specificity, and 90%-92% accuracy overall in analyses designed to emulate out-of-sample performance. Pairwise prevalence ratios between non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics estimated by application of these algorithms are within 1%-10% of prevalence ratios estimated based on in-person diagnoses.
CONCLUSIONS
We believe these algorithms will be of immense value to dementia researchers interested in racial/ethnic disparities. Our process can be replicated to allow minimally biasing algorithmic classification of dementia for other purposes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31567393
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001101
pmc: PMC6888863
mid: NIHMS1539389
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
126-133Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH113850
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R03 AG055485
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Epidemiology. 2019 Mar;30(2):291-302
pubmed: 30461528
Ann Neurol. 2011 Sep;70(3):418-26
pubmed: 21425187
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011 Jul;66 Suppl 1:i162-71
pubmed: 21743047
Big Data. 2017 Jun;5(2):153-163
pubmed: 28632438
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 4;368(14):1326-34
pubmed: 23550670
Int J Biostat. 2016 May 1;12(1):203-18
pubmed: 27227721
Alzheimers Dement. 2010 Mar;6(2):158-94
pubmed: 20298981
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997 May;52 Spec No:37-48
pubmed: 9215356
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Mar 18;148(6):427-34
pubmed: 18347351
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):176-81
pubmed: 20547888
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Mar 1;177(5):443-52
pubmed: 23364879
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2013 Jul-Sep;27(3):207-12
pubmed: 22992720
Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(4):181-91
pubmed: 16103729