Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40829975›Full record

ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2025

Dementia risk prediction: A comparative analysis of the ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 indices in the HUNT study.

Josephine Stubs, Ellen Melbye Langballe, Gill Livingston, Kaarin J Anstey, Kay Deckers, Fiona E Mathews, Mika Kivimäki, Bjørn Heine Strand, Anne-Marie Rokstad, Steinar Krokstad and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Associations of dementia polyexposure scores to Alzheimer's disease endophenotypes in a diverse population.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Josephine StubsNorwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Aldring og helse, 103 Tønsberg, Norway; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo Norway; Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: josephine.stuebs@aldringoghelse.no.
Ellen Melbye LangballeNorwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Aldring og helse, 103 Tønsberg, Norway; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo Norway.
Gill LivingstonDivision of Psychiatry, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, University College London, London, W1W 7EJ UK; North London NHS Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, London, NW1 0PE UK.
Kaarin J AnsteySchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia; UNSW Ageing Futures Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Kay DeckersAlzheimer Centrum Limburg, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Mental Health and Neuroscience Research Institute (MHeNs), Maastricht University, Dr. Tanslaan 12, 6229 ET, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Fiona E MathewsInstitute for Clinical and Applied Health Research, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Mika KivimäkiDivision of Psychiatry, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, University College London, London, W1W 7EJ UK; Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8 B, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland.
Bjørn Heine StrandNorwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Aldring og helse, 103 Tønsberg, Norway; Department of Physical Health and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Anne-Marie RokstadNorwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Aldring og helse, 103 Tønsberg, Norway; Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Care, Molde University College, Postboks 2110, 6402 Molde, Norway.
Steinar KrokstadDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, HUNT Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Levanger Hospital, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust, Levanger, Norway.
Geir SelbækNorwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Aldring og helse, 103 Tønsberg, Norway; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo Norway; Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectiveDementia is a major global health concern, necessitating effective risk assessment tools and early intervention. This study compared the performance of five modifiable dementia risk indices - ANU-ADRI, CAIDE, CogDrisk, LIBRA, and LIBRA2 and a "demographics-only" (age, education) model.

methodsWe analyzed data from 5247 Norwegian participants in the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4 70+, 2017-2019) and dementia risk indices from baseline data in HUNT3 (2006-2008). Logistic regression models assessed associations between standardized index scores and all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) across age group (<65 vs. ≥65 years), sex, and APOE4 status.

resultsDuring the mean follow-up of 10.6 (9.3-12.3) years (SD=0.74), all indices significantly predicted dementia and AD, though none outperformed the demographics-only model. CogDrisk showed significantly better discriminative ability than all other indices (0.76, 95 % CI:0.74-0.78; DeLong p < 0.05), followed by LIBRA (0.75, 95 % CI:0.72-0.77) and ANU-ADRI (0.74, 95 % CI:0.72-0.76). LIBRA2 (0.69, 95 % CI:0.66-0.71) and CAIDE (0.59, 95 % CI:0.56-0.61) had significantly lower accuracy (DeLong p < 0.001). Removing demographics maintained rank order but reduced accuracy across all indices. Stratified analyses showed stronger performance in those ≥65 years and females at HUNT3, while APOE4 status did not affect performance.

conclusionAll indices were associated with dementia risk, with CogDrisk performing best across all conditions, and LIBRA2 and CAIDE performing weakest. No index outperformed a model including age and education only. Future research should refine risk indices for age- and sex-specific applications and assess whether simpler demographic models may suffice in some contexts.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseDementiaAgedAged, 80 and overApolipoprotein E4FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsApolipoprotein E4DementiaHUNTLifestyleModifiable risk factorsRisk index

Identifiers

PMID40829975
PMCPMC12501341

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.