ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2017
Design of pilot studies to inform the construction of composite outcome measures.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple System Atrophy Combined Outcome Assessment (MuSyCA): process, format, and validation plan.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2026Article
- Optimal Weighting of Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) Scales to Improve their Performance as Outcome Measures for Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials.International journal of statistics in medical research · 2023Article
- Power formulas for mixed effects models with random slope and intercept comparing rate of change across groups.The international journal of biostatistics · 2021Article
- Design and sample size considerations for Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using multistate models.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2019Article
- Sex-specific composite scales for longitudinal studies of incipient Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2019Article
- A novel cognitive-functional composite measure to detect changes in early Alzheimer's disease: Test-retest reliability and feasibility.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- A randomized controlled trial of combined executive function and memory training on the cognitive and noncognitive function of individuals with mild cognitive impairment: Study rationale and protocol design.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018Article
- Power analysis to detect treatment effects in longitudinal clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2017Article
- ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComposite scales have recently been proposed as outcome measures for clinical trials. For example, the Prodromal Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) is the sum of z-score normed component measures assessing episodic memory, timed executive function, and global cognition. Alternative methods of calculating composite total scores using the weighted sum of the component measures that maximize signal-to-noise of the resulting composite score have been proposed. Optimal weights can be estimated from pilot data, but it is an open question how large a pilot trial is required to calculate reliably optimal weights.
methodsIn this manuscript, we describe the calculation of optimal weights, and use large-scale computer simulations to investigate the question of how large a pilot study sample is required to inform the calculation of optimal weights. The simulations are informed by the pattern of decline observed in cognitively normal subjects enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) Prevention Instrument cohort study, restricting to n=75 subjects age 75 and over with an ApoE E4 risk allele and therefore likely to have an underlying Alzheimer neurodegenerative process.
resultsIn the context of secondary prevention trials in Alzheimer's disease, and using the components of the PACC, we found that pilot studies as small as 100 are sufficient to meaningfully inform weighting parameters. Regardless of the pilot study sample size used to inform weights, the optimally weighted PACC consistently outperformed the standard PACC in terms of statistical power to detect treatment effects in a clinical trial. Pilot studies of size 300 produced weights that achieved near-optimal statistical power, and reduced required sample size relative to the standard PACC by more than half.
conclusionsThese simulations suggest that modestly sized pilot studies, comparable to that of a phase 2 clinical trial, are sufficient to inform the construction of composite outcome measures. Although these findings apply only to the PACC in the context of prodromal AD, the observation that weights only have to approximate the optimal weights to achieve near-optimal performance should generalize. Performing a pilot study or phase 2 trial to inform the weighting of proposed composite outcome measures is highly cost-effective. The net effect of more efficient outcome measures is that smaller trials will be required to test novel treatments. Alternatively, second generation trials can use prior clinical trial data to inform weighting, so that greater efficiency can be achieved as we move forward.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.