Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783127›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022

Avoid or Embrace? Practice Effects in Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Trials.

Andrew J Aschenbrenner, Jason Hassenstab, Guoqiao Wang, Yan Li, Chengjie Xiong, Eric McDade, David B Clifford, Stephen Salloway, Martin Farlow, Roy Yaari and 18 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CognivueJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Amyloid and SCD jointly predict cognitive decline across Chinese and German cohorts.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

28 authors.

Andrew J AschenbrennerWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Jason HassenstabWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Guoqiao WangWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Yan LiWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Chengjie XiongWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Eric McDadeWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
David B CliffordWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Stephen SallowayWarren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
Martin FarlowIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Roy YaariEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Eden Y J ChengEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Karen C HoldridgeEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Catherine J MummeryUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
Colin L MastersUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ging-Yuek HsiungThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ghulam SurtiThe University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States.
Gregory S DayMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States.
Sandra WeintraubFeiniberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.
Lawrence S HonigColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States.
James E GalvinMiller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
John M RingmanUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
William S BrooksNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales Medicine, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Nick C FoxDementia Research Center, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter J SnyderThe University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States.
Kazushi SuzukiThe University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki ShimadaOsaka City University, Osaka, Japan.
Susanne GräberGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Disease (DZNE), Tübingen, Germany.
Randall J BatemanWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.

Funding

Imaging CoreU19AG032438 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2010 to 2025
$53.9M
DIAN-TU Next Generation Prevention Trial - Data Request Management SupplementR01AG053267 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2017 to 2023
$34.9M
Neuropathology CoreP30AG013854 · NIA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI BIGIO, EILEEN H. · 1996 to 2020
$28.9M
USCADRC Diversity Supplement PachicanoP30AG066530 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HELENA Chang CHUI, ARTHUR W TOGA · 2020 to 2026
$27.8M
Research Education Core FP30AG072977 · NIA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ROBERT J VASSAR · 2021 to 2026
$26.3M
Multicultural Community Dementia ScreeningR01AG071514 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GALVIN, JAMES E · 2021 to 2025
$13.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG013854NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066530NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072977NIA NIH HHS R01 AG053267NIA NIH HHS R01 AG071514NIA NIH HHS U19 AG032438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Demonstrating a slowing in the rate of cognitive decline is a common outcome measure in clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Selection of cognitive endpoints typically includes modeling candidate outcome measures in the many, richly phenotyped observational cohort studies available. An important part of choosing cognitive endpoints is a consideration of improvements in performance due to repeated cognitive testing (termed "practice effects"). As primary and secondary AD prevention trials are comprised predominantly of cognitively unimpaired participants, practice effects may be substantial and may have considerable impact on detecting cognitive change. The extent to which practice effects in AD prevention trials are similar to those from observational studies and how these potential differences impact trials is unknown. In the current study, we analyzed data from the recently completed DIAN-TU-001 clinical trial (TU) and the associated DIAN-Observational (OBS) study. Results indicated that asymptomatic mutation carriers in the TU exhibited persistent practice effects on several key outcomes spanning the entire trial duration. Critically, these practice related improvements were larger on certain tests in the TU relative to matched participants from the OBS study. Our results suggest that the magnitude of practice effects may not be captured by modeling potential endpoints in observational studies where assessments are typically less frequent and drug expectancy effects are absent. Using alternate instrument forms (represented in our study by computerized tasks) may partly mitigate practice effects in clinical trials but incorporating practice effects as outcomes may also be viable. Thus, investigators must carefully consider practice effects (either by minimizing them or modeling them directly) when designing cognitive endpoint AD prevention trials by utilizing trial data with similar assessment frequencies.

Indexed as

alternative formsAlzheimer’s diseaseassessment frequencyclinical trialslearningpractice effects

Identifiers

PMID35783127
PMCPMC9244171

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.