Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
A re-evaluation study and literature review on AD8 as a screening tool for dementia
Cho-Hsiang Yang, Yi‐Ting Lin, Ming Hsien Hsieh, Tzung‐Jeng Hwang. PLoS ONE, 2025-05-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Thirty-seven participants had a CDR of 0, 61 had a CDR of 0.5, and 20 had a CDR ≥ 1. To discriminate between the participants with CDR 0 and those with CDR 0.5, the optimal cutoff score for the AD8 was 2. Including those with CDR ≥ 1 changed the best cutoff value to 3. In terms of the DSM-5 criteria, 59 participants had normal cognition, 28 had mild neurocognitive disorder, and 31 had major neurocognitive disorder or dementia. To discriminate between those with and without dementia, an AD8 cutoff value of 4 maximized the Youden index with more balanced sensitivity and specificity. The AD8 may have different cutoff values depending on different purposes. Our findings suggest that the AD8 may perform better with a cutoff value of 4 to discriminate between those with and without dementia.
Key findings
- Thirty-seven participants had a CDR of 0, 61 had a CDR of 0.5, and 20 had a CDR ≥ 1.
- To discriminate between the participants with CDR 0 and those with CDR 0.5, the optimal cutoff score for the AD8 was 2.
- Including those with CDR ≥ 1 changed the best cutoff value to 3.
- In terms of the DSM-5 criteria, 59 participants had normal cognition, 28 had mild neurocognitive disorder, and 31 had major neurocognitive disorder or dementia.
- To discriminate between those with and without dementia, an AD8 cutoff value of 4 maximized the Youden index with more balanced sensitivity and specificity.
Why it matters
This re-evaluation found that the AD8 screening tool may perform better with a cutoff value of 4 to discriminate between those with and without dementia, and that optimal cutoffs vary by purpose. It is about refining a screening tool and does not treat, cure or prevent Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants118
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 44/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS ONE) |
| Journal's citation record | 4 / 4 | PLoS ONE: journal h-index 594 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 118 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Tzung‐Jeng Hwang: h-index 34 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | National Taiwan University: institution h-index 752 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40323929) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 44 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Yang, C.-H., Lin, Y., Hsieh, M. H., & Hwang, T. (2025). A re-evaluation study and literature review on AD8 as a screening tool for dementia. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321570
Vancouver
Yang C.-H, Lin Y, Hsieh MH, Hwang T. A re-evaluation study and literature review on AD8 as a screening tool for dementia. PLoS ONE. 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321570. PMID: 40323929.
BibTeX
@article{yang2025-40323929,
author = {Yang, Cho-Hsiang and Lin, Yi‐Ting and Hsieh, Ming Hsien and Hwang, Tzung‐Jeng},
title = {{A re-evaluation study and literature review on AD8 as a screening tool for dementia}},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0321570},
pmid = {40323929},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321570}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.