Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35547623›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022

Practice Effects in Mild Cognitive Impairment Increase Reversion Rates and Delay Detection of New Impairments.

Mark Sanderson-Cimino, Jeremy A Elman, Xin M Tu, Alden L Gross, Matthew S Panizzon, Daniel E Gustavson, Mark W Bondi, Emily C Edmonds, Joel S Eppig, Carol E Franz and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Diagnostic value of saccades in mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Addressing Practice Effects in Population-Based Studies of Trends in Late-Life Dementia and Cognitive Impairment.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors.

Mark Sanderson-CiminoUniversity of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States.
Jeremy A ElmanCenter for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Xin M TuDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Alden L GrossDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, United States.
Matthew S PanizzonCenter for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Daniel E GustavsonDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Mark W BondiDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Emily C EdmondsDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Joel S EppigRehabilitation Institute of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Carol E FranzCenter for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Amy J JakCenter for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Michael J LyonsDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Kelsey R ThomasDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
McKenna E WilliamsUniversity of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States.
William S KremenCenter for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.

Funding

The VETSA Longitudinal Twin Study of Cognition and Aging (VETSA 4)R01AG050595 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ELMAN, JEREMY A, FRANZ, CAROL ELAINE · 2015 to 2024
$28.0M
The VETSA Longitudinal MRI Twin Study of Aging (VETSA MRI 4)R01AG076838 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ANDERS M DALE, Jeremy A Elman · 2022 to 2026
$8.7M
Linking genetic subtypes of Alzheimer's disease to biological and cognitive heterogeneityK01AG063805 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ELMAN, JEREMY A · 2021 to 2024
$516k
Practice Effects in Cognitive Aging: Implications for Biomarkers and Early DiagnosisF31AG064834 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SANDERSON-CIMINO, MARK · 2020 to 2021
$78k
NIA NIH HHS F31 AG064834NIA NIH HHS K01 AG063805NIA NIH HHS R01 AG050595NIA NIH HHS R01 AG076838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Cognitive practice effects (PEs) can delay detection of progression from cognitively unimpaired to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They also reduce diagnostic accuracy as suggested by biomarker positivity data. Even among those who decline, PEs can mask steeper declines by inflating cognitive scores. Within MCI samples, PEs may increase reversion rates and thus impede detection of further impairment. Within an MCI sample at baseline, we evaluated how PEs impact prevalence, reversion rates, and dementia progression after 1 year. Methods: We examined 329 baseline Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative MCI participants (mean age = 73.1; Results: Accounting for PEs increased MCI prevalence at follow-up by 9.2% (272 vs. 249 MCI), and reduced reversion to normal by 28.8% (57 vs. 80 reverters). PEs also increased stability of single-domain MCI by 12.0% (164 vs. 147). Compared to PE-unadjusted diagnoses, use of PE-adjusted follow-up diagnoses led to a twofold increase in hazard ratios for incident dementia. We classified individuals as false reverters if they reverted to cognitively unimpaired status based on PE-unadjusted scores, but remained classified as MCI cases after accounting for PEs. When amyloid and tau positivity were examined together, 72.2% of these false reverters were positive for at least one biomarker. Interpretation: Even when PEs are small, they can meaningfully change whether some individuals with MCI retain the diagnosis at a 1-year follow-up. Accounting for PEs resulted in increased MCI prevalence and altered stability/reversion rates. This improved diagnostic accuracy also increased the dementia-predicting ability of MCI diagnoses.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasebiomarkerscognitive agingdementia progressionmild cognitive impairmentpractice effects

Identifiers

PMID35547623
PMCPMC9083463

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.