{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T01:28:00Z","timestamp":1786498080193,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":24,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,21]],"date-time":"2026-05-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1779321600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786492800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":83,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Med Ethics"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Dementia is frequently invoked in medico-legal contexts where questions of legal capacity, guardianship, testamentary validity, transactional validity, and criminal responsibility arise. Although subtype differentiation and cognitive assessment are central to clinical dementia evaluation, it remains unclear to what extent such clinically meaningful detail is visible in appellate judicial reasoning. This study examined the visibility of dementia subtype specification and cognitive evidence in decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation (2005\u20132025), and examined the ethical implications of these textual patterns for transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness in judicial decision-making.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, document-based analysis of publicly accessible Court of Cassation decisions. Using keyword-based searches (\u201cdemans,\u201d \u201cbunama,\u201d and \u201cAlzheimer\u201d), 1,180 decisions were identified; after screening for legal relevance, 1,031 decisions were included. Each decision was coded across 15 variables, including dementia subtype specification, cognitive evidence visibility, legal context, and medical report source. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Temporal trends in dementia subtype visibility were analysed using logistic regression, supplemented by year-by-year distributional assessment and multivariable sensitivity modelling. A parallel logistic regression was also conducted for the broader binary outcome of any visible cognitive evidence (specific or non-specific;\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009104 events).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Dementia subtype information was explicitly specified in 46.4% of decisions (478\/1,031; 95% CI, 43.3\u201349.5%), whereas 53.6% used only general or unspecified terminology. Alzheimer\u2019s disease was the most frequently reported subtype, appearing in 451 decisions (43.7% of the full sample; 94.4% of subtype-specified decisions). Subtype visibility increased significantly over time (OR\u2009=\u20091.062 per year; 95% CI, 1.034\u20131.091;\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001). In contrast, visible cognitive evidence remained limited: 89.9% of decisions contained no reference to cognitive assessment, 9.8% included only non-specific references, and only 0.3% explicitly named the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; 95% CI, 0.1\u20130.8%). No decision referred to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Any visible cognitive evidence was present in 10.1% of decisions (104\/1,031; 95% CI, 8.3\u201312.1%) and was highest in guardianship\/restriction cases (19.7%). Temporal modelling of any visible cognitive evidence was associated with a statistically significant decrease over the study period (OR\u2009=\u20090.918 per year; 95% CI, 0.880\u20130.958;\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Dementia subtype specification became moderately more visible in appellate judicial reasoning over time, whereas the textual visibility of cognitive evidence remained limited. These findings concern the traceability of clinically relevant information within decision summaries rather than the adequacy of the underlying evidentiary process itself. Strengthening the structured reporting of diagnostic basis, relevant cognitive findings, and functionally relevant capacity-related findings in medico-legal documentation may support improved transparency and accountability in the translation of clinical evidence into legal reasoning.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,21]],"date-time":"2026-05-21T14:45:09Z","timestamp":1779374709000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Dementia subtype specification and cognitive evidence visibility in Turkish Court of Cassation decisions: a document analysis of 1,031 decisions (2005\u20132025)"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Abdullah","family":"G\u00fczel","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Furkan","family":"\u0130ncebacak","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Elif Simin","family":"Iss\u0131","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,21]]},"reference":[{"issue":"12","key":"1480_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1689","DOI":"10.1002\/mds.21507","volume":"22","author":"M Emre","year":"2007","unstructured":"Emre M, Aarsland D, Brown R, Burn DJ, Duyckaerts C, Mizuno Y, et al. Clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia associated with Parkinson\u2019s disease. Mov Disord. 2007;22(12):1689\u2013707.","journal-title":"Mov Disord"},{"issue":"1","key":"1480_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"88","DOI":"10.1212\/WNL.0000000000004058","volume":"89","author":"IG McKeith","year":"2017","unstructured":"McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, Halliday G, Taylor JP, Weintraub D, et al. Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium. Neurology. 2017;89(1):88\u2013100.","journal-title":"Neurology"},{"issue":"Pt 9","key":"1480_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2456","DOI":"10.1093\/brain\/awr179","volume":"134","author":"K Rascovsky","year":"2011","unstructured":"Rascovsky K, Hodges JR, Knopman D, Mendez MF, Kramer JH, Neuhaus J, et al. Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 9):2456\u201377.","journal-title":"Brain"},{"issue":"3","key":"1480_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"263","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jalz.2011.03.005","volume":"7","author":"GM McKhann","year":"2011","unstructured":"McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack CR Jr, Kawas CH, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer\u2019s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer\u2019s Association workgroups. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):263\u20139.","journal-title":"Alzheimers Dement"},{"key":"1480_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rom\u00e1n GC, Tatemichi TK, Erkinjuntti T, Cummings JL, Masdeu JC, Garcia JH et al. Vascular dementia: diagnostic criteria for research studies. Report of the NINDS-AIREN International Workshop. Neurology. 1993;43(2):250\u201360.","DOI":"10.1212\/WNL.43.2.250"},{"issue":"9","key":"1480_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1143","DOI":"10.1212\/WNL.56.9.1143","volume":"56","author":"DS Knopman","year":"2001","unstructured":"Knopman DS, DeKosky ST, Cummings JL, Chui H, Corey-Bloom J, Relkin N, et al. Practice parameter: diagnosis of dementia (an evidence-based review). Neurology. 2001;56(9):1143\u201353.","journal-title":"Neurology"},{"key":"1480_CR7","volume-title":"Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers (NG97)","author":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)","year":"2018","unstructured":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers (NG97). London: NICE; 2018."},{"issue":"3","key":"1480_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"189","DOI":"10.1016\/0022-3956(75)90026-6","volume":"12","author":"MF Folstein","year":"1975","unstructured":"Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189\u201398.","journal-title":"J Psychiatr Res"},{"issue":"4","key":"1480_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"695","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x","volume":"53","author":"ZS Nasreddine","year":"2005","unstructured":"Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, B\u00e9dirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695\u20139.","journal-title":"J Am Geriatr Soc"},{"issue":"9","key":"1480_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1450","DOI":"10.1001\/jamainternmed.2015.2152","volume":"175","author":"KKF Tsoi","year":"2015","unstructured":"Tsoi KKF, Chan JYC, Hirai HW, Wong SYS, Kwok TCY. Cognitive tests to detect dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1450\u20138.","journal-title":"JAMA Intern Med"},{"issue":"6","key":"1480_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"877","DOI":"10.1001\/archneur.57.6.877","volume":"57","author":"DC Marson","year":"2000","unstructured":"Marson DC, Sawrie SM, Snyder S, McInturff B, Stalvey T, Boothe A, et al. Assessing financial capacity in patients with Alzheimer disease: a conceptual model and prototype instrument. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(6):877\u201384.","journal-title":"Arch Neurol"},{"issue":"3","key":"1480_CR12","first-page":"287","volume":"43","author":"KI Shulman","year":"2015","unstructured":"Shulman KI, Hull IM, DeKoven S, et al. Cognitive fluctuations and the lucid interval in dementia: implications for testamentary capacity. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43(3):287\u201392.","journal-title":"J Am Acad Psychiatry Law"},{"issue":"3","key":"1480_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"158","DOI":"10.1037\/a0032159","volume":"68","author":"J Moye","year":"2013","unstructured":"Moye J, Marson DC, Edelstein B. Assessment of capacity in an aging society. Am Psychol. 2013;68(3):158\u201371.","journal-title":"Am Psychol"},{"issue":"25","key":"1480_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1635","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM198812223192504","volume":"319","author":"PS Appelbaum","year":"1988","unstructured":"Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients\u2019 capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(25):1635\u20138.","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"1480_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"420","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2011.1023","volume":"306","author":"LL Sessums","year":"2011","unstructured":"Sessums LL, Zembrzuska H, Jackson JL. Does this patient have medical decision-making capacity? JAMA. 2011;306(4):420\u20137.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"2","key":"1480_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.3316\/QRJ0902027","volume":"9","author":"GA Bowen","year":"2009","unstructured":"Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27\u201340.","journal-title":"Qual Res J"},{"key":"1480_CR17","volume-title":"An introduction to empirical legal research","author":"L Epstein","year":"2014","unstructured":"Epstein L, Martin AD. An introduction to empirical legal research. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014."},{"issue":"9","key":"1480_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1277","DOI":"10.1177\/1049732305276687","volume":"15","author":"HF Hsieh","year":"2005","unstructured":"Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277\u201388.","journal-title":"Qual Health Res"},{"key":"1480_CR19","volume-title":"Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology","author":"K Krippendorff","year":"2013","unstructured":"Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2013.","edition":"3"},{"issue":"7624","key":"1480_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"806","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.39335.541782.AD","volume":"335","author":"E von Elm","year":"2007","unstructured":"von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, G\u00f8tzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806\u20138.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"5","key":"1480_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"722","DOI":"10.1176\/ajp.2007.164.5.722","volume":"164","author":"KI Shulman","year":"2007","unstructured":"Shulman KI, Cohen CA, Kirsh FC, Hull IM, Champine PR. Assessment of testamentary capacity and vulnerability to undue influence. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(5):722\u20137.","journal-title":"Am J Psychiatry"},{"issue":"4","key":"1480_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"151","DOI":"10.1024\/1662-9647\/a000113","volume":"27","author":"J Haberstroh","year":"2014","unstructured":"Haberstroh J, M\u00fcller T, Knebel M, Kaspar R, Oswald F, Pantel J. Can the Mini-Mental State Examination predict capacity to consent to treatment? GeroPsych. 2014;27(4):151\u20139.","journal-title":"GeroPsych"},{"key":"1480_CR23","volume-title":"Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 12 \u2013 equal recognition before the law","author":"United Nations","year":"2006","unstructured":"United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 12 \u2013 equal recognition before the law. New York: United Nations; 2006."},{"issue":"8","key":"1480_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e16334","DOI":"10.1111\/ene.16334","volume":"31","author":"K N\u00e4kki","year":"2024","unstructured":"N\u00e4kki K, M\u00e4ki-Pet\u00e4j\u00e4-Leinonen A, Ervasti K, Halkoaho A, Nurmi SM, Solomon A, et al. Diverging medical and legal perceptions of the need for legal guardianship in people with dementia: a qualitative study. Eur J Neurol. 2024;31(8):e16334.","journal-title":"Eur J Neurol"}],"container-title":["BMC Medical Ethics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T00:46:24Z","timestamp":1786495584000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,21]]},"references-count":24,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1480"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12910-026-01480-w","relation":{},"ISSN":["1472-6939"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1472-6939","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,21]]},"assertion":[{"value":"3 March 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"7 May 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"21 May 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"This study is based exclusively on publicly accessible and anonymised Court of Cassation decisions retrieved from the official Decision Search System of the Presidency of the Court of Cassation (Yarg\u0131tay Karar Arama). No human participants were directly involved, and no identifiable personal data were collected or processed. Therefore, formal ethics committee approval and informed consent were not required under applicable national regulations.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent for publication","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}],"article-number":"161"}}