Trial reportJournal of neurology2019
Cognitive changes of older adults with an equivocal amyloid load.
Trial report in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Deep gray matter atrophy mediates the associations between glymphatic dysfunction and clinical disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a neuroimaging subgroup study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Subtyping relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis using structural MRI.Journal of neurology · 2021Article
- A 4-Year Follow-Up of Subjects with Visually Equivocal Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Findings from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Cohort.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- The Who, When, Why, and How of PET Amyloid Imaging in Management of Alzheimer's Disease-Review of Literature and Interesting Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Age-related episodic memory decline and the role of amyloid-β: a systematic review.Dementia & neuropsychologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObservational and interventional studies addressing the link between amyloid (Aβ) burden and cognitive decline are increasing, but a clear definition of amyloid positivity is still lacking. This may represent a great stake for therapeutic studies enrolling Aβ + patients only. The main objective of this study was to define a population with "equivocal" amyloid status, and evaluate their cognitive changes.
methodsSixty-five participants over 75 years old, from the Control group of the interventional MAPT study, at risk to develop Alzheimer's disease, were included. Participants were classified into three groups in terms of amyloid load: Aβ +, Aβ - and Equivocal participants (according to visual reading, global standardized uptake (SUVR) cut-offs, or a k-mean clustering method). The cognitive changes over time (memory, executive functions, attention and processing speed) of this Equivocal group were then compared to Aβ + and Aβ - participants.
resultsWhen classified by visual read, Equivocal participants' memory scores were comparable to the Aβ- participants, and greater than in Aβ + participants over time. Secondary analyses, using SUVR cut-offs classification, showed different trajectories with Equivocal participants being comparable to the Aβ + participants, and lower than Aβ-, on executive performance over time.
conclusionsThis original work pointed out a population that may be of great interest for interventional studies, raising the question of how amyloid status should be defined and integrated in such studies. These findings should be replicated in future studies on larger datasets, to confirm what methodological approach would be the most suitable to highlight this specific neuroimaging entity.
Indexed as
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.