Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35543000›Full record

ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2022

Validity of Online Versus In-Clinic Self-Reported Everyday Cognition Scale.

T Howell, J Neuhaus, M M Glymour, M W Weiner, R L Nosheny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Brain health registry updates: An online longitudinal neuroscience platform.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    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

5 authors.

T HowellTaylor Howell, 4150 Clement Street, #114M Building 13 San Francisco, California 94121, USA, Telephone: 415-221-4810 x24222, taylor.howell@ucsf.edu.
J Neuhaus
M M Glymour
M W Weiner
R L Nosheny

Funding

Project 1U19AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI MICHAEL W WEINER · 2016 to 2026
$226.7M
The Alzheimer's Clinical Trial Consortium - Down Syndrome Network (ACTC- DSN)U24AG057437 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Paul S. Aisen, RONALD C PETERSEN · 2018 to 2026
$198.4M
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical/Prodromal Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG053798 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI AISEN, PAUL S., CUMMINGS, JEFFREY L. · 2017 to 2022
$39.4M
Democratising Machine Learning for researchers working in Alzheimer's spaceR01AG058676 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE · PI MASTERS, COLIN · 2018 to 2022
$10.9M
Characterizing Cognitive Decline in Late Life Depression: The ADNI-D ProjectR01MH098062 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Robert Scott Mackin · 2013 to 2026
$9.1M
Validation of Online Methods to Predict and Monitor Cognitive DeclineRF1AG059009 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NOSHENY, RACHEL LAUREN · 2018 to 2018
$6.2M
The Brain Health Registry for facilitating interdisciplinary aging researchR33AG062867 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NOSHENY, RACHEL LAUREN · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG053798NIA NIH HHS R01 AG058676NIA NIH HHS R33 AG062867NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG059009NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904NIA NIH HHS U19 AG024904NIA NIH HHS U24 AG057437NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH098062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline cognitive assessments are alternatives to in-clinic assessments.

objectivesWe evaluated the relationship between online and in-clinic self-reported Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog).

methodsIn 94 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Brain Health Registry (ADNI-BHR) participants, we estimated associations between online and in-clinic Everyday Cognition using Bland-Altman plots and regression. In 472 ADNI participants, we estimated reliability of in-clinic Everyday Cognition completed six months apart using Bland-Altman plots and regression.

resultsOnline Everyday Cognition associations: Mean difference was 0.11 (95% limits of agreement: -0.41 to 0.64). In-clinic Everyday Cognition score increased by 0.81 for each online Everyday Cognition score unit increase (R2=0.60). In-clinic Everyday Cognition reliability: Mean difference was 0.01 (95% limits of agreement: -0.61 to 0.62). In-clinic Everyday Cognition score at enrollment increased by 0.79 for each in-clinic Everyday Cognition score unit increase at six months (R2=0.61).

conclusionOnline Everyday Cognition closely corresponded with in-clinic Everyday Cognition, supporting validity of using online cognitive assessments to more efficiently facilitate Alzheimer's disease research.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionCognitionHumansNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportEveryday cognitiononline research registry

Identifiers

PMID35543000
PMCPMC9881822

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.