Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35415211›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2022

Proportional constrained longitudinal data analysis models for clinical trials in sporadic Alzheimer's disease.

Guoqiao Wang, Lei Liu, Yan Li, Andrew J Aschenbrenner, Randall J Bateman, Paul Delmar, Lon S Schneider, Richard E Kennedy, Gary R Cutter, Chengjie Xiong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Letter to the Editor.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Statistical considerations when estimating time-saving treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Guoqiao WangDivision of Biostatistics Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
Lei LiuDivision of Biostatistics Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
Yan LiDepartment of Neurology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
Andrew J AschenbrennerDepartment of Neurology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
Randall J BatemanDepartment of Neurology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
Paul DelmarF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Basel Switzerland.
Lon S SchneiderDepartment of Psychiatry and The Behavioral Sciences Department of Neurology Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles USA.
Richard E KennedyDepartment of Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham USA.
Gary R CutterDepartment of Biostatistics University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham USA.
Chengjie XiongDivision of Biostatistics Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.

Funding

DIAN-TU Next Generation Prevention Trial - Data Request Management SupplementR01AG053267 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2017 to 2023
$34.9M
USCADRC Diversity Supplement PachicanoP30AG066530 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HELENA Chang CHUI, ARTHUR W TOGA · 2020 to 2026
$27.8M
Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network Trials Unit - Adaptive Prevention TrialR01AG046179 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2014 to 2019
$26.6M
DOMINANTLY INHERITED ALZHEIMER NETWORK TRIAL: AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT DEMENTIAU01AG042791 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2013 to 2018
$8.9M
DIAN-TU: Next Generation Prevention TrialR56AG053267 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2016 to 2016
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066530NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046179NIA NIH HHS R01 AG053267NIA NIH HHS R56 AG053267NIA NIH HHS U01 AG042791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical trials for sporadic Alzheimer's disease generally use mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) or, to a lesser degree, constrained longitudinal data analysis models (cLDA) as the analysis model with time since baseline as a categorical variable. Inferences using MMRM/cLDA focus on the between-group contrast at the pre-determined, end-of-study assessments, thus are less efficient (eg, less power). Methods: The proportional cLDA (PcLDA) and proportional MMRM (pMMRM) with time as a categorical variable are proposed to use all the post-baseline data without the linearity assumption on disease progression. Results: Compared with the traditional cLDA/MMRM models, PcLDA or pMMRM lead to greater gain in power (up to 20% to 30%) while maintaining type I error control. Discussion: The PcLDA framework offers a variety of possibilities to model longitudinal data such as proportional MMRM (pMMRM) and two-part pMMRM which can model heterogeneous cohorts more efficiently and model co-primary endpoints simultaneously.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseMMRMproportional constrained longitudinal data analysis model (PcLDA)proportional MMRM (pMMRM)proportional treatment effect

Identifiers

PMID35415211
PMCPMC8984094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.