ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2019
Alzheimer's disease progression and risk factors: A standardized comparison between six large data sets.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting the Type 5 Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor: A Potential Therapeutic Strategy for Neurodegenerative Diseases?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- The dynamics of biomarkers across the clinical spectrum of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There exist a large number of cohort studies that have been used to identify genetic and biological risk factors for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there is a disagreement between studies as to how strongly these risk factors affect the rate of progression through diagnostic groups toward AD. We have calculated the probability of transitioning through diagnostic groups in six studies and considered how uncertainty around the strength of the effect of these risk factors affects estimates of the distribution of individuals in each diagnostic group in an AD clinical trial simulator. In this work, we identify the optimal choice of widely collected variables for comparing data sets and calculating probabilities of progression toward AD. We use the estimated transition probabilities to inform stochastic simulations of AD progression that are based on a Markov model and compare predicted incidence rates to those in a community-based study, the Cardiovascular Health Study.
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.