You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Old age psychiatry
Development and validation of a dementia risk score in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 24 April 2024
    Inaccurate representation of ANU-ADRI and biased comparison of ANU-ADRI with UKBDR concerning age distribution of the UK Biobank sample
    • Kaarin J. Anstey, Professor of Psychology, Institute Director University of New South Wales
    • Other Contributors:
      • Md Hamidul Huque, Statistician

    The article [1] reports the development of a new dementia risk score, leveraging off superior area under the curve (AUC) statistics compared with previously published risk scores. However, the representation and use of at least one of those prior risk scores is highly inaccurate and this raises concerns about the overall integrity of the publication.

    1. The authors incorrectly state that the ANU-ADRI risk index[2] was ‘developed in cohorts in Australia’ (abstract and page 2). This is wrong, it was not developed directly from any other cohorts. Rather, as described in the original publication[2] it was developed using an evidence-based medicine approach that collated the effect sizes of risk factors drawn from systematic reviews. The systematic reviews draw from the wider literature, with most cohorts being from North America, the UK, and Europe. The tool was validated three external cohort studies. Data from Australia was rarely included in the meta-analyses from which the risk score was derived [2].

    2. The authors say that the ANU-ADRI ‘was developed for older individuals (60+), ….however our sensitivity analysis also performed poorly when restricting our cohort to an age range matching its development sample’.
    There are two problems with this sentence:
    a. There was no development cohort for the ANU-ADRI so it could not have been possible for the described sensitivity analysis to have been undertaken.
    b. Most cohort studies that contribut...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 23 October 2023
    Dementia Risk Score for UK
    • Arun Jha, Consultant Old Age Psychiatrist Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Tharun Radhakrishnan, Specialist Registrar, in Old Age Psychiatry

    We are delighted to read the publication of a new dementia risk score for prediction of dementia up to 14 years. We congratulate the authors for incorporating almost all modifiable factors identified by the 2020 Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, management and care. Since the publication of the European Brain Health Guidelines earlier this year, memory clinic professionals in the UK have been desperately looking for a home grown tool. We hope to see an online training for using this clinical tool in the near future.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.