Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26379170›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Use of High-Frequency In-Home Monitoring Data May Reduce Sample Sizes Needed in Clinical Trials.

Hiroko H Dodge, Jian Zhu, Nora C Mattek, Daniel Austin, Judith Kornfeld, Jeffrey A Kaye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Developing digital health technologies for frontotemporal degeneration.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hiroko H DodgeDepartment of Neurology, Layton Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Department of Neurology, Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Jian ZhuGraduate School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Nora C MattekDepartment of Neurology, Layton Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Daniel AustinDepartment of Neurology, Layton Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Judith KornfeldDepartment of Neurology, Layton Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Jeffrey A KayeDepartment of Neurology, Layton Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Portland Veterans Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.

Funding

Outreach, Recruitment and Education CoreP30AG008017 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KAYE, JEFFREY A · 1990 to 2019
$27.7M
Pilot CoreP30AG024978 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KAYE, JEFFREY A · 2004 to 2023
$9.0M
Intelligent Systems for Detection of Aging ChangesR01AG024059 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KAYE, JEFFREY A · 2006 to 2010
$6.7M
Conversational Engagement as a Means to Delay Alzheimer's Disease OnsetR01AG033581 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DODGE, HIROKO HAYAMA · 2010 to 2012
$1.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG008017NIA NIH HHS P30-AG008017NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024978NIA NIH HHS P30-AG024978NIA NIH HHS R01 AG024059NIA NIH HHS R01-AG024059NIA NIH HHS R01 AG033581NIA NIH HHS R01-AG033581
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials in Alzheimer's disease are increasingly focusing on prevention in asymptomatic individuals. This poses a challenge in examining treatment effects since currently available approaches are often unable to detect cognitive and functional changes among asymptomatic individuals. Resultant small effect sizes require large sample sizes using biomarkers or secondary measures for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Better assessment approaches and outcomes capable of capturing subtle changes during asymptomatic disease stages are needed.

objectiveWe aimed to develop a new approach to track changes in functional outcomes by using individual-specific distributions (as opposed to group-norms) of unobtrusive continuously monitored in-home data. Our objective was to compare sample sizes required to achieve sufficient power to detect prevention trial effects in trajectories of outcomes in two scenarios: (1) annually assessed neuropsychological test scores (a conventional approach), and (2) the likelihood of having subject-specific low performance thresholds, both modeled as a function of time.

methodsOne hundred nineteen cognitively intact subjects were enrolled and followed over 3 years in the Intelligent Systems for Assessing Aging Change (ISAAC) study. Using the difference in empirically identified time slopes between those who remained cognitively intact during follow-up (normal control, NC) and those who transitioned to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), we estimated comparative sample sizes required to achieve up to 80% statistical power over a range of effect sizes for detecting reductions in the difference in time slopes between NC and MCI incidence before transition.

resultsSample size estimates indicated approximately 2000 subjects with a follow-up duration of 4 years would be needed to achieve a 30% effect size when the outcome is an annually assessed memory test score. When the outcome is likelihood of low walking speed defined using the individual-specific distributions of walking speed collected at baseline, 262 subjects are required. Similarly for computer use, 26 subjects are required.

conclusionsIndividual-specific thresholds of low functional performance based on high-frequency in-home monitoring data distinguish trajectories of MCI from NC and could substantially reduce sample sizes needed in dementia prevention RCTs.

Indexed as

Aged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicCognitive DysfunctionDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryNeuropsychological TestsSample SizeAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID26379170
PMCPMC4574479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.