ArticleJAR life2026
Diagnosis patterns among diverse populations with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease in the USA.
Article in JAR life, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid advancements in diagnostic biomarkers and criteria have created a complex and evolving environment for clinicians managing patients with cognitive complaints. Real-world data on current diagnostic processes used among diverse populations remains limited. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate diagnostic patterns and use of diagnostic tests among U.S. adults with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and/or dementia, stratified by gender, age, and race/ethnicity before clinical availability of blood-based biomarkers and the most recent diagnostic updates. Design: Retrospective, observational cohort study. Setting: The Optum® Market Clarity database from January 1, 2017, to September 30, 2021, was utilized. Participants: 338,739 patients diagnosed with dementia, 81,267 with AD, and 179,419 with MCI were included in the analysis. Measurements: Demographics information identified from electronic health records at the time of diagnosis was utilized. Occurrence and timing of diagnostic tests was pulled from insurance claims and electronic health records. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 69.3 years for MCI, 78.9 years for AD, and 78.6 years for dementia. Computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used infrequently (MCI: MRI 16.6%, CT 17.5%; AD: MRI 9.0%, CT 18.4%; dementia: MRI 9.5%, CT 25.9%). Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker tests and positron emission tomography (PET) were rarely used (MCI: PET 0.6%, CSF 1.6%; AD: PET 0.5%, CSF 0.9%; dementia: PET 0.2%, CSF 1.6%). Conclusions: During the study period, diagnosis of MCI, AD, and dementia involved low use of brain imaging or CSF biomarkers, despite recommendations from guidelines. By better understanding how patients navigate their diagnostic journey in real-world settings, diagnostic practices can improve and faster support can be provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.