Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26560146›Full record

Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2015

New scoring methodology improves the sensitivity of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) in clinical trials.

Nishant Verma, S Natasha Beretvas, Belen Pascual, Joseph C Masdeu, Mia K Markey, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on cognition in nondiabetic patients with mild cognitive impairment or alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Nishant VermaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 107 W. Dean Keeton Street Stop C0800, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. nishant3115@gmail.com.
S Natasha BeretvasDepartment of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5800, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. tberetvas@austin.utexas.edu.
Belen PascualNantz National Alzheimer Center, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, 6560 Fannin Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. bpascual@houstonmethodist.org.
Joseph C MasdeuNantz National Alzheimer Center, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, 6560 Fannin Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jcmasdeu@houstonmethodist.org.
Mia K MarkeyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 107 W. Dean Keeton Street Stop C0800, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. mia.markey@utexas.edu.
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs currently used, the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) has low sensitivity for measuring Alzheimer's disease progression in clinical trials. A major reason behind the low sensitivity is its sub-optimal scoring methodology, which can be improved to obtain better sensitivity.

methodsUsing item response theory, we developed a new scoring methodology (ADAS-CogIRT) for the ADAS-Cog, which addresses several major limitations of the current scoring methodology. The sensitivity of the ADAS-CogIRT methodology was evaluated using clinical trial simulations as well as a negative clinical trial, which had shown an evidence of a treatment effect.

resultsThe ADAS-Cog was found to measure impairment in three cognitive domains of memory, language, and praxis. The ADAS-CogIRT methodology required significantly fewer patients and shorter trial durations as compared to the current scoring methodology when both were evaluated in simulated clinical trials. When validated on data from a real clinical trial, the ADAS-CogIRT methodology had higher sensitivity than the current scoring methodology in detecting the treatment effect.

conclusionsThe proposed scoring methodology significantly improves the sensitivity of the ADAS-Cog in measuring progression of cognitive impairment in clinical trials focused in the mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease stage. This provides a boost to the efficiency of clinical trials requiring fewer patients and shorter durations for investigating disease-modifying treatments.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsAccess to InformationAlzheimer DiseaseClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationFemaleHumansInternetLongitudinal StudiesMalePsychometricsSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26560146
PMCPMC4642693

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.