Cited by 91Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments

A Clinicopathological Comparison of Community-Based and Clinic-Based Cohorts of Patients With Dementia

Open access
Massoud, Fadi, Devi, Gayatri, Stern, Yaakov, Lawton, Arlene, Goldman, James E., Liu, Yan, Chin, Steven S., Mayeux, Richard·1999·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

Objectives To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, the distribution of pathological causes, and the demographic and clinical characteristics of 2 different groups of patients with dementia. Design Retrospective clinicopathological study. Setting A memory disorder clinic in a university hospital and a multiethnic community. Patients Sixty-three patients from a memory disorder clinic and 26 patients from a large community-based study who underwent autopsy after clinical evaluation. Main outcome measures Differential distribution of clinical and pathological findings, with clinicopathological correlations. Results Clinic patients were younger at diagnosis, more educated, and more likely to be white. Of the 63 clinic patients we evaluated, 29 (46%) had a pathological diagnosis of definite AD, 15 (24%) had a diagnosis of mixed AD, and 19 (30%) had a diagnosis of another type of dementia. The pathological diagnoses in the community patients were distributed as follows: 6 (23%) had definite AD, 6 (23%) had mixed AD, 6 (23%) had cerebrovascular disease, and 8 (31%) had another type of dementia. The difference in distribution of pathological diagnoses between these 2 groups was only significant for cerebrovascular diseases. For patients seen at the clinic, the sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis of AD was 98% and the specificity was 84%; for the community group, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 79%. Conclusions The di…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.56.11.1368

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Massoud, F., Devi, G., Stern, Y., Lawton, A., Goldman, J. E., Liu, Y., Chin, S. S., & Mayeux, R.
Affiliations
Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
1999-11-01
Volume
56
Issue
11
Pages
1368
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114952717
Cited by
91
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r35ag010963-04)
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG007232, AG 07232, AG10963)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 00645, M01RR000645)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, dementia, clinicopathological correlation, community-based cohort, vascular dementia, autopsy pathology, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Autopsy, Catchment Area, Health, Community Health Services, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review