Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33480172›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2021

MarkVCID cerebral small vessel consortium: I. Enrollment, clinical, fluid protocols.

Donna Wilcock, Gregory Jicha, Deborah Blacker, Marilyn S Albert, Lina M D'Orazio, Fanny M Elahi, Myriam Fornage, Jason D Hinman, Janice Knoefel, Joel Kramer and 22 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia: Prevention, treatments, mechanisms and management options for the future.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

32 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.

Donna WilcockSanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Gregory JichaSanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Deborah BlackerDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health and Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Marilyn S AlbertDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Lina M D'OrazioDepartment of Neurology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Fanny M ElahiCenter for Memory and Aging, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Myriam FornageMcGovern Medical School and Human Genetics Center, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jason D HinmanDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Janice KnoefelDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Joel KramerDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Richard J KryscioSanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Melissa LamarRush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abhay MoghekarDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jillian PrestopnikCenter for Memory and Aging, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
John M RingmanDepartment of Neurology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Gary RosenbergCenter for Memory and Aging, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Abhay SagareZilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Claudia L SatizabalGlenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer's & Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Julie SchneiderRush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sudha SeshadriGlenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer's & Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Sandeepa SurDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Russell P TracyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Sevil YasarDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Victoria WilliamsDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Herpreet SinghDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lidiya MazinaNeurological Clinical Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Karl G HelmerDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Roderick A CorriveauNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Kristin SchwabDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Pia KivisäkkAlzheimer's Clinical and Translational Research Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Steven M GreenbergDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
MarkVCID Consortium
Massachusetts General Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Kentucky · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Southern California · USRush University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USBaim Institute for Clinical Research · USBrown Foundation · USHarvard University · USInstitute for Neurodegenerative Disorders · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG066507 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Corinne Pettigrew · 2020 to 2026
$29.3M
UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Core CenterP30AG010129 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI OLICHNEY, JOHN M · 1991 to 2020
$28.3M
USCADRC Diversity Supplement PachicanoP30AG066530 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HELENA Chang CHUI, ARTHUR W TOGA · 2020 to 2026
$27.8M
The Aging Brain: Vasculature, Ischemia, and BehaviorP01AG012435 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI REED, BRUCE · 1994 to 2012
$26.4M
South Texas Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066546 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Sudha Seshadri · 2021 to 2026
$24.0M
University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG072946 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI LINDA J VAN ELDIK · 2021 to 2026
$23.5M
University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Core Center - Biomarker CoreP30AG028383 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI SCHMITT, FREDERICK · 2006 to 2020
$23.3M
PRECURSORS OF STROKE INCIDENCE AND PROGNOSISR01NS017950 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Hugo Javier Aparicio, Jose Rafael Romero · 1985 to 2026
$22.9M
VCID Biomarkers Coordinating CenterU24NS100591 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Steven M Greenberg · 2016 to 2026
$19.8M
Temporal Trends, Novel Imaging and Molecular Characterization of Preclinical and Clinical Alzheimer's Disease in the Framingham CohortsR01AG054076 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI DECARLI, CHARLES, SESHADRI, SUDHA · 2016 to 2020
$12.3M
Multidimensional Assessment of Brain Health as A Marker of Dementia Risk and ResilienceR01AG066524 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI KASHANI, AMIR H, RAMACHANDRAN, VASAN S · 2020 to 2024
$9.7M
Validation of Biomarkers of Small Vessel Injury in VCIDUF1NS100598 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI ROSENBERG, GARY ALLEN · 2021 to 2023
$6.3M
CSRD VA IK2 CX002180NIA NIH HHS P01 AG012435NIA NIH HHS P20 AG068077NIA NIH HHS P30 AG010129NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028383NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066507NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066530NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066546NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072946NIA NIH HHS R01 AG054076NIA NIH HHS R01 AG066524NIA NIH HHS U01 AG052409NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS017950NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS007412NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS125513NINDS NIH HHS U24 NS100591NINDS NIH HHS UF1 NS100598NINDS NIH HHS UF1 NS100614NINDS NIH HHS UF1 NS125513NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100588NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100598NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100599NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100605NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100606NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100608NINDS NIH HHS UH2 NS100614NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS100598NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS100608NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS100614
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) derives from more than two decades of research indicating that (1) most older individuals with cognitive impairment have post mortem evidence of multiple contributing pathologies and (2) along with the preeminent role of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, cerebrovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of this contribution. Contributing cerebrovascular processes include both overt strokes caused by etiologies such as large vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, and embolic infarcts of unknown source, and frequently asymptomatic brain injuries caused by diseases of the small cerebral vessels. Cerebral small vessel diseases such as arteriolosclerosis and cerebral amyloid angiopathy, when present at moderate or greater pathologic severity, are independently associated with worse cognitive performance and greater likelihood of dementia, particularly in combination with AD and other neurodegenerative pathologies. Based on this evidence, the US National Alzheimer's Project Act explicitly authorized accelerated research in vascular and mixed dementia along with frontotemporal and Lewy body dementia and AD itself. Biomarker development has been consistently identified as a key step toward translating scientific advances in VCID into effective prevention and treatment strategies. Validated biomarkers can serve a range of purposes in trials of candidate interventions, including (1) identifying individuals at increased VCID risk, (2) diagnosing the presence of cerebral small vessel disease or specific small vessel pathologies, (3) stratifying study participants according to their prognosis for VCID progression or treatment response, (4) demonstrating an intervention's target engagement or pharmacodynamic mechanism of action, and (5) monitoring disease progression during treatment. Effective biomarkers allow academic and industry investigators to advance promising interventions at early stages of development and discard interventions with low success likelihood. The MarkVCID consortium was formed in 2016 with the goal of developing and validating fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers for the cerebral small vessel diseases associated with VCID. MarkVCID consists of seven project sites and a central coordinating center, working with the National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke and National Institute on Aging under cooperative agreements. Through an internal selection process, MarkVCID has identified a panel of 11 candidate biomarker "kits" (consisting of the biomarker measure and the clinical and cognitive data used to validate it) and established a range of harmonized procedures and protocols for participant enrollment, clinical and cognitive evaluation, collection and handling of fluid samples, acquisition of neuroimaging studies, and biomarker validation. The overarching goal of these protocols is to generate rigorous validating data that could be used by investigators throughout the research community in selecting and applying biomarkers to multi-site VCID trials. Key features of MarkVCID participant enrollment, clinical/cognitive testing, and fluid biomarker procedures are summarized here, with full details in the following text, tables, and supplemental material, and a description of the MarkVCID imaging biomarker procedures in a companion paper, "MarkVCID Cerebral small vessel consortium: II. Neuroimaging protocols." The procedures described here address a range of challenges in MarkVCID's design, notably: (1) acquiring all data under informed consent and enrollment procedures that allow unlimited sharing and open-ended analyses without compromising participant privacy rights; (2) acquiring the data in a sufficiently wide range of study participants to allow assessment of candidate biomarkers across the various patient groups who might ultimately be targeted in VCID clinical trials; (3) defining a common dataset of clinical and cognitive elements that contains all the key outcome markers and covariates for VCID studies and is realistically obtainable during a practical study visit; (4) instituting best fluid-handling practices for minimizing avoidable sources of variability; and (5) establishing rigorous procedures for testing the reliability of candidate fluid-based biomarkers across replicates, assay runs, sites, and time intervals (collectively defined as the biomarker's instrumental validity). Participant Enrollment Project sites enroll diverse study cohorts using site-specific inclusion and exclusion criteria so as to provide generalizable validation data across a range of cognitive statuses, risk factor profiles, small vessel disease severities, and racial/ethnic characteristics representative of the diverse patient groups that might be enrolled in a future VCID trial. MarkVCID project sites include both prospectively enrolling centers and centers providing extant data and samples from preexisting community- and population-based studies. With approval of local institutional review boards, all sites incorporate MarkVCID consensus language into their study documents and informed consent agreements. The consensus language asks prospectively enrolled participants to consent to unrestricted access to their data and samples for research analysis within and outside MarkVCID. The data are transferred and stored as a de-identified dataset as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule. Similar human subject protection and informed consent language serve as the basis for MarkVCID Research Agreements that act as contracts and data/biospecimen sharing agreements across the consortium. Clinical and Cognitive Data Clinical and cognitive data are collected across prospectively enrolling project sites using common MarkVCID instruments. The clinical data elements are modified from study protocols already in use such as the Alzheimer's Disease Center program Uniform Data Set Version 3 (UDS3), with additional focus on VCID-related items such as prior stroke and cardiovascular disease, vascular risk factors, focal neurologic findings, and blood testing for vascular risk markers and kidney function including hemoglobin A1c, cholesterol subtypes, triglycerides, and creatinine. Cognitive assessments and rating instruments include the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale, and most of the UDS3 neuropsychological battery. The cognitive testing requires ≈60 to 90 minutes. Study staff at the prospectively recruiting sites undergo formalized training in all measures and review of their first three UDS3 administrations by the coordinating center. Collection and Handling of Fluid Samples Fluid sample types collected for MarkVCID biomarker kits are serum, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-plasma, platelet-poor plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with additional collection of packed cells to allow future DNA extraction and analyses. MarkVCID fluid guidelines to minimize variability include fasting morning fluid collections, rapid processing, standardized handling and storage, and avoidance of CSF contact with polystyrene. Instrumental Validation for Fluid-Based Biomarkers Instrumental validation of MarkVCID fluid-based biomarkers is operationally defined as determination of intra-plate and inter-plate repeatability, inter-site reproducibility, and test-retest repeatability. MarkVCID study participants both with and without advanced small vessel disease are selected for these determinations to assess instrumental validity across the full biomarker assay range. Intra- and inter-plate repeatability is determined by repeat assays of single split fluid samples performed at individual sites. Inter-site reproducibility is determined by assays of split samples distributed to multiple sites. Test-retest repeatability is determined by assay of three samples acquired from the same individual, collected at least 5 days apart over a 30-day period and assayed on a single plate. The MarkVCID protocols are designed to allow direct translation of the biomarker validation results to multicenter trials. They also provide a template for outside groups to perform analyses using identical methods and therefore allow direct comparison of results across studies and centers. All MarkVCID protocols are available to the biomedical community and intended to be shared. In addition to the instrumental validation procedures described here, each of the MarkVCID kits will undergo biological validation to determine whether the candidate biomarker measures important aspects of VCID such as cognitive function. Analytic methods and results of these validation studies for the 11 MarkVCID biomarker kits will be published separately. The results of this rigorous validation process will ultimately determine each kit's potential usefulness for multicenter interventional trials aimed at preventing or treating small vessel disease related VCID.

Indexed as

BiomarkersPatient SelectionResearch DesignAgedCerebral Small Vessel DiseasesCognitive DysfunctionDementiaDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleNeuropsychological TestsStrokeBiomarkersbest practicesbiomarkerbiospecimenclinical and cognitive evaluationclinical and cognitive outcome markerscollection and handling of fluid samplesenrollmentharmonized procedures and protocolssmall vessel diseasevalidationvascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia

Identifiers

PMID33480172
PMCPMC8122220
OpenAlexW3121627691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.