ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2020
Commentary: Composite cognitive and functional measures for early stage Alzheimer's disease trials.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical variables contributing to the identification of biologically defined subgroups within cognitively unimpaired and mild cognitive impairment individuals.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Analyzing large Alzheimer's disease cognitive datasets: Considerations and challenges.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- Commentary: Composite cognitive and functional measures for early stage Alzheimer's disease trials.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this commentary I consider the issues raised in Schneider and Goldberg's review of composite cognitive and functional measures. I find much to agree with in their commentary and especially their concerns regarding satisfactory psychometric validation of composite measures. I endorse also their provision for analysis by cognitive domain, backed by the use of statistical methods for grouping test variables. The authors helpfully mention the possibility that treatment effects may be peculiar to specific domains of cognitive function. I develop this view and argue for exploratory studies of new therapeutic interventions to include broad assessments of the cognitive domains known to be compromised in early Alzheimer's disease. I suggest that the results of exploratory studies be used to help identify target domains for confirmatory studies. Finally, I note that computerized cognitive composite assessments have often been validated in the fashion that the authors recommend for composite measures.
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.