Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31775871›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2019

Study partner types and prediction of cognitive performance: implications to preclinical Alzheimer's trials.

Michelle M Nuño, Daniel L Gillen, Joshua D Grill, Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Study partner characteristics moderate the prediction of cognitive decline in aging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Brain Health Registry Study Partner Portal: Novel infrastructure for digital, dyadic data collection.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Subjective cognitive decline across ethnoracial groups in the A4 study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michelle M NuñoInstitute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. mnuno2@uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2031-929X
Daniel L GillenInstitute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Joshua D GrillInstitute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

UC Irvine Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell CoreP50AG016573 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LAFERLA, FRANK M · 2000 to 2019
$37.0M
University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
Neuroimaging biomarkers for cognitive decline in elderly with amyloid pathologyR01AG053555 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Michael A Yassa · 2017 to 2026
$17.0M
Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR000153 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M · 2012 to 2015
$12.1M
Effects of Alzheimers Disease Clinical Trial Study Partners-Diversity SupplementRF1AG059407 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI GILLEN, DANIEL L, GRILL, JOSHUA · 2018 to 2019
$1.6M
The study partner requirement in preclinical Alzheimers disease trialsR21AG056931 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI GILLEN, DANIEL L, GRILL, JOSHUA · 2017 to 2018
$406k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000153NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414NIA NIH HHS 1R21AG056931NIA NIH HHS AG016573NIA NIH HHS AG059407NIA NIH HHS P50 AG016573NIA NIH HHS R01 AG053555NIA NIH HHS R21 AG056931NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG059407NIH HHS UL1 TR000153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials require enrollment of a participant and a study partner, whose role includes assessing participant cognitive and functional performance. AD trials now investigate early stages of the disease, when participants are not cognitively impaired. This gives rise to the question of whether study partners or participants provide more information in these trials.

methodsWe used data from the AD Cooperative Study Prevention Instrument Project (ADCS-PI) to compare participant and study partner predictions of the participant's current and future cognitive state. We used the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) as a measure of evaluation of the participant's cognitive status and the modified ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (mADCS-PACC) as an objective measure of cognition. Stratifying by cognitive status and study partner type and adjusting for other predictors of the participant's cognitive state, we used random forests along with estimated mean variable importance (eMVI) to assess how well each member of the dyad can predict cognitive state at current and later visits. We also fit linear regression models at each time point and for each scenario.

resultsParticipants were better at predicting future cognitive status compared to their study partners regardless of study partner type, though the difference between participants and partners was greatest for non-spousal dyads in the lowest-performing quartile. Cross-sectional assessments differed substantially by dyad type. Within the lowest cognitive performance quartile, participants having a non-spousal study partner outperformed their partners in assessing cognition at later times. Spousal partners, in contrast, outperformed participants later in the study in predicting current cognitive performance.

conclusionsThese results indicate that participants tend to be better at predicting future cognition compared to their study partners regardless of the study partner type. When assessing current cognition, however, spousal study partners perform better at later time points and non-spousal study partners do not provide as much information regarding participant cognitive state.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseCognitionDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsProdromal SymptomsResearch DesignResearch SubjectsADCS-PIAlzheimer’s diseaseStudy partners

Identifiers

PMID31775871
PMCPMC6881999
OpenAlexW2990043863

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.