Back

Chart review and genetic validation of electronic medical record dementia diagnoses in VA: The impact of CMS data

Logue, M.; Lee, S. O.; Gillis, M.; Zhang, R.; Lee, M.; Marra, D.; Lopez, F. V.; Lynch, J.; Panizzon, M. S.; Tsuang, D. W.; Hauger, R. L.; The MVP Cognitive Decline and Dementia During Aging Working Group, ; Program, V. M. V.; Merritt, V. C.

2026-07-17 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.14.26358063 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes are often used in epidemiological studies to track disease rates over time. Objective: This evaluation of ICD-code-based algorithms for electronic medical record (EMR) studies of Alzheimers disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) examines the impact of incorporating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) data as an additional source of diagnostic and treatment information in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) EMR studies. Methods: We performed a chart review of 100 VA Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants to evaluate algorithm performance. We also assessed genetic associations across algorithms in a large MVP cohort (n=396k). Results: Adding CMS data increased the number of detected cases, sensitivity, and positive predictive value, but decreased specificity and negative predictive value. Genetic analyses showed that broader (ADRD/dementia) algorithms with just VA data performed similarly to narrow (AD-focused) algorithms incorporating both VA and CMS ICD codes. Additionally, narrow AD algorithms based solely on VA data yielded the highest ORs, indicating the largest proportion of late-onset AD cases. Conclusions: We recommend using a broad (ADRD) algorithm without CMS or medication data, particularly for epidemiological studies or a strict AD algorithm including CMS and medication cases for genetic discovery of late-onset AD associations in VA EMR, and a strict AD algorithm without CMS data for applications focused solely on AD and sensitive to misspecification. Careful evaluation of algorithm performance is warranted in different EMR systems, as ICD coding practices vary by institution, as demonstrated by this comparison of VA EMR and CMS data.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.3%
2
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.3%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.8%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Neurobiology of Aging
107 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
6
Alzheimer's & Dementia
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
7
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
8
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
9
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
10
Age and Ageing
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
11
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
12
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
13
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
15
Annals of Neurology
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.1%
18
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
25
GeroScience
109 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
npj Aging
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
27
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%