Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

We investigated the interrater reliability and accuracy of two independent medical doctors in using NINCDS/ADRDA criteria to classify 82 elderly subjects enrolled in OPTIMA, a longitudinal study investigating dementia. Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement (0.5) in overall classification of dementia type, and almost perfect agreement (0.9) on the absence or presence of dementia. Combining NINCDS/ADRDA 'possible' and 'probable' Alzheimer's disease (AD) categories produced substantial agreement (0.7). Comparison with CERAD histopathological criteria for AD showed that combining 'possible' and 'probable' AD resulted in a high sensitivity and accuracy, but a low specificity. To increase specificity, the NINCDS/ADRDA 'probable AD' category should be used alone. An important finding was that the accuracy of diagnoses of AD made from the case notes alone was not different from the diagnoses obtained following active involvement with participants.

Original publication




Journal article


Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord

Publication Date





107 - 113


Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dementia, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Observer Variation, Plaque, Amyloid, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, United States