The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) was developed in the 1980s to assess the level of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease. Advancements in the research field have shifted focus toward pre-dementia populations, and use of the ADAS-Cog has extended into these pre-dementia studies despite concerns about its ability to detect important changes at these milder stages of disease progression. If the ADAS-Cog cannot detect important changes, our understanding of pre-dementia disease progression may be compromised and trials may incorrectly conclude that a novel treatment approach is not beneficial. The purpose of this review was to assess the performance of the ADAS-Cog in pre-dementia populations, and to review all modifications that have been made to the ADAS-Cog to improve its measurement performance in dementia or pre-dementia populations. The contents of this review are based on bibliographic searches of electronic databases to locate all studies using the ADAS-Cog in pre-dementia samples or subsamples, and to locate all modified versions. Citations from relevant articles were also consulted. Overall, our results suggest the original ADAS-Cog is not an optimal outcome measure for pre-dementia studies; however, given the prominence of the ADAS-Cog, care must be taken when considering the use of alternative outcome measures. Thirty-one modified versions of the ADAS-Cog were found. Modification approaches that appear most beneficial include altering scoring methodology or adding tests of memory, executive function, and/or daily functioning. Although modifications improve the performance of the ADAS-Cog, this is at the cost of introducing heterogeneity that may limit between-study comparison.

lower limb motor function was associated with increased risk of developing dementia, while tremor and hand grip strength were not. Our results support future research investigating the inclusion of quantitative motor assessment, specifically gait velocity tests, for clinical dementia risk evaluation.

PURPOSE Rapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care. METHODSWe performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in English. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s). RESULTSOf 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%).CONCLUSIONS Research on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:250-258. https://doi.

Background Effective deployment of AI tools in primary health care requires the engagement of practitioners in the development and testing of these tools, and a match between the resulting AI tools and clinical/system needs in primary health care. To set the stage for these developments, we must gain a more in-depth understanding of the views of practitioners and decision-makers about the use of AI in primary health care. The objective of this study was to identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. Methods This study utilized a descriptive qualitative approach, including thematic data analysis. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary health care and digital health stakeholders in Ontario. NVivo software was utilized in the coding of the interviews. Results Five main interconnected themes emerged: (1) Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality—denoting the importance of potential applications of AI in primary health care practice, with a recognition of the current reality characterized by a lack of available tools; (2) Mechanics of AI Don’t Matter: Just Another Tool in the Toolbox– reflecting an interest in what value AI tools could bring to practice, rather than concern with the mechanics of the AI tools themselves; (3) AI in Practice: A Double-Edged Sword—the possible benefits of AI use in primary health care contrasted with fundamental concern about the possible threats posed by AI in terms of clinical skills and capacity, mistakes, and loss of control; (4) The Non-Starters: A Guarded Stance Regarding AI Adoption in Primary Health Care—broader concerns centred on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI use in primary health care; and (5) Necessary Elements: Facilitators of AI in Primary Health Care—elements required to support the uptake of AI tools, including co-creation, availability and use of high quality data, and the need for evaluation. Conclusion The use of AI in primary health care may have a positive impact, but many factors need to be considered regarding its implementation. This study may help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

Objective: Internationally, primary care practice had to transform in response to the COVID pandemic. Informatics issues included access, privacy, and security, as well as patient concerns of equity, safety, quality, and trust. This paper describes progress and lessons learned. Methods: IMIA Primary Care Informatics Working Group members from Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States developed a standardised template for collection of information. The template guided a rapid literature review. We also included experiential learning from primary care and public health perspectives. Results: All countries responded rapidly. Common themes included rapid reductions then transformation to virtual visits, pausing of non-COVID related informatics projects, all against a background of non-standardized digital development and disparate territory or state regulations and guidance. Common barriers in these four and in less-resourced countries included disparities in internet access and availability including bandwidth limitations when internet access was available, initial lack of coding standards, and fears of primary care clinicians that patients were delaying care despite the availability of televisits. Conclusions: Primary care clinicians were able to respond to the COVID crisis through telehealth and electronic record enabled change. However, the lack of coordinated national strategies and regulation, assurance of financial viability, and working in silos remained limitations. The potential for primary care informatics to transform current practice was highlighted. More research is needed to confirm preliminary observations and trends noted.