ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2022
Clinical Progression of Baseline Risk States for Mild Cognitive Impairment.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis memory-clinic study joins efforts to study earliest clinical signs and symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: subjective reports and objective neuropsychological test performance.
objectiveThe memory-clinic denoted two clinical "grey zones": 1) subjective cognitive decline (SCD; n = 107) with normal objective test scores, and 2) isolated low test scores (ILTS; n = 74) without subjective complaints to observe risk for future decline.
methodsInitial and annual follow-up clinical research evaluations and consensus diagnosis were used to evaluate baseline characteristics and clinical progression over 2.7 years, compared to normal controls (NC; n = 117).
resultsThe ILTS group was on average older than the NC and SCD groups. They had a higher proportion of people identifying as belonging to a minoritized racial group. The SCD group had significantly more years of education than the ILTS group. Both ILTS and SCD groups had increased risk of progression to mild cognitive impairment. Older age, minoritized racial identity, and baseline cognitive classification were risk factors for progression.
conclusionThe two baseline risk groups look different from each other, especially with respect to demographic correlates, but both groups predict faster progression than controls, over and above demographic differences. Varied presentations of early risk are important to recognize and may advance cognitive health equity in aging.
Indexed as
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.