Home › Research › Disparities
Evaluating linked ICD‐10 Medicare claims data as a method of dementia case ascertainment in research settings
Joya Bhattacharyya, Lisa Laverne Barnes, Yi Chen, Kan Z. Gianattasio, Francine Grodstein, Bryan David James, David X. Márquez, Ali Moghtaderi et al.. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2025-05-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
A total of 1869 participants contributed 5309 observations (mean age 82.9 years, 21.0% Black, 9.3% met research-based dementia criteria). The accuracy of ICD-10 code definitions was high (87%-90%); five of six code definitions favored specificity over sensitivity. All ICD-10 code definitions were less accurate among subgroups defined by older age, minoritized race, increased depressive symptoms, and history of stroke. Performance of ICD-10 code definitions mirrored that of ICD-9 code definitions. Awareness of differential performance by participant characteristics can improve the robustness of research. HIGHLIGHTS: We report the performance of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code versus research-based dementia ascertainment. ICD-10 performed worse with age, depressive symptoms, minoritized race, and stroke. Awareness of accuracy and differential performance can improve research robustness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bhattacharyya, J., Barnes, L. L., Chen, Y., Gianattasio, K. Z., Grodstein, F., James, B. D., et al. (2025). Evaluating linked ICD‐10 Medicare claims data as a method of dementia case ascertainment in research settings. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70200
Vancouver
Bhattacharyya J, Barnes LL, Chen Y, Gianattasio KZ, Grodstein F, James BD, et al. Evaluating linked ICD‐10 Medicare claims data as a method of dementia case ascertainment in research settings. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.70200. PMID: 40356037.
BibTeX
@article{bhattacharyya2025-40356037,
author = {Bhattacharyya, Joya and Barnes, Lisa Laverne and Chen, Yi and Gianattasio, Kan Z. and Grodstein, Francine and James, Bryan David and Márquez, David X. and Moghtaderi, Ali and others},
title = {{Evaluating linked ICD‐10 Medicare claims data as a method of dementia case ascertainment in research settings}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz.70200},
pmid = {40356037},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70200}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A total of 1869 participants contributed 5309 observations (mean age 82.9 years, 21.0% Black, 9.3% met research-based dementia criteria).
- The accuracy of ICD-10 code definitions was high (87%-90%); five of six code definitions favored specificity over sensitivity.
- All ICD-10 code definitions were less accurate among subgroups defined by older age, minoritized race, increased depressive symptoms, and history of stroke.
- Performance of ICD-10 code definitions mirrored that of ICD-9 code definitions.
- Awareness of differential performance by participant characteristics can improve the robustness of research.
Why it matters
ICD-10 Medicare claims identified dementia with 87% to 90% accuracy but were less accurate in older, minoritized, depressed, or stroke-affected subgroups. This is about how dementia is counted in research, not about treating, curing, or preventing it.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Participants1,869
- Effect size21.0%; 9.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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 | 3 / 4 | 1,869 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 3 / 7 | Cited 23 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 7.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 14.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 4 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 23 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Melinda C. Power: h-index 47 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Chicago: institution h-index 1,769 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40356037) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 55 / 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).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
4 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Disparities
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.