We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Special Article |

Optimizing the Hachinski Ischemic Scale

Vladimir Hachinski, MD, FRCPC, DSc; Shahram Oveisgharan, MD; A. Kimball Romney, PhD; William R. Shankle, MS, MD
Arch Neurol. 2012;69(2):169-175. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.1698.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background Vascular causes and factors remain the most significant preventable component of cognitive disorders of elderly individuals. The Hachinski Ischemic Score (HIS) is the questionnaire most commonly used for diagnosis of vascular dementia.

Objective To consolidate and further validate the HIS.

Design The Canadian Study for Health and Aging was used for this study. It was a cohort study conducted in 3 waves in 1991, 1996-1997, and 2001-2002. The HIS containing 13 items was subjected to correspondence analysis to identify its optimal scaling of item scores and minimal set of items while maximizing the explainable variance.

Setting A community-based cohort study.

Patients For this analysis, we used 2968 of 3054 well-characterized and well-diagnosed cases with complete HIS data (86 cases had ≥1 item missing) from Canadian Study for Health and Aging phases 2 (1996-1997; n = 2431) and 3 (2001-2002; n = 623).

Results Two optimized HIS versions were identified that classify patients with vascular dementia vs those with nonvascular dementia as well as or more accurately than the original HIS instrument. Assuming the HIS instrument measures only a single dimension, correspondence analysis identified the 7 most discriminative HIS items. Binary scoring (0, 1) of these items led to a 7-item HIS model that classified as well as the original 13-item HIS instrument. By merging highly similar HIS items and applying correspondence analysis, a 5-item composite HIS model was created that measures 2 meaningful dimensions of information and classified vascular vs nonvascular dementia better than the original HIS instrument. Each HIS version developed has specific advantages and disadvantages in terms of simplicity, scoring, generalizability, and accuracy.

Conclusion Depending on the specific setting, 2 reduced HIS versions consisting of 5 composite-question items or 7 single-question items classify as well as or better than the original HIS instrument.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Scree plot of the first 4 inertial values (dimensions) of the correspondence analysis of the Hachinski Ischemic Score questions. Only the first 2 dimensions significantly contribute to explanation of the variance (dimension 1 = 85.0%; dimension 2 = 9.2%).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Plots of the 2-dimensional optimal row (patient) and column (Hachinski Ischemic Score [HIS] item) score vectors for the full model of 13 HIS items (A) and the 5 best-fitting composite HIS item model (items 1/2, 3/4, 6/8, 9/11, and 10/12) (B). The number at the end of each line indicates the HIS item number with a score of 1 (positive response). *The 0 indicates a score of 0 (negative response). The correspondence analysis (CA)–derived optimal row (patient) scores for the 712 cases of vascular dementia (VD) (n = 192) and non-VD (n = 520) are plotted on the same scale as the original 13 HIS items (A) or 5 composite items (B). Note the relatively good separation of VD and non-VD cases within the 2-dimensional CA space.




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

5 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Does This Patient Have a Hemorrhagic Stroke?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Quick Reference