Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38224146›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2024

Predictors and outcomes of fluctuations in the clinical dementia rating scale.

Hannah Wilks, Tammie L S Benzinger, Suzanne E Schindler, Carlos Cruchaga, John C Morris, Jason Hassenstab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Falls predict faster progression to Alzheimer's dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predictors and outcomes of fluctuations in the clinical dementia rating scale.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Hannah WilksDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Tammie L S BenzingerCharles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Suzanne E SchindlerCharles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Carlos CruchagaCharles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
John C MorrisCharles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jason HassenstabDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Funding

Smartphone-Based "Burst" Cognitive AssessmentsP01AG003991 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JOHN MORRIS · 1985 to 2026
$69.5M
The natural history of AB accumulation in preclinical ADP01AG026276 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MORRIS, JOHN · 2005 to 2025
$49.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066444 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAVID M. HOLTZMAN · 2020 to 2026
$28.7M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG003991NIA NIH HHS P01 AG026276NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionReversion, or change in cognitive status from impaired to normal, is common in aging and dementia studies, but it remains unclear what factors predict reversion.

methodsWe investigated whether reverters, defined as those who revert from a Clinical Dementia Rating® (CDR®) scale score of 0.5 to CDR 0) differed on cognition and biomarkers from unimpaired participants (always CDR 0) and impaired participants (converted to CDR > 0 and had no reversion events). Models evaluated relationships between biomarker status, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, and cognition. Additional models described predictors of reversion and predictors of eventual progression to CDR > 0.

resultsCDR reversion was associated with younger age, better cognition, and negative amyloid biomarker status. Reverters that eventually progressed to CDR > 0 had more visits, were older, and were more likely to have an APOE ε4 allele. DISCUSSION: CDR reversion occupies a transitional phase in disease progression between cognitive normality and overt dementia. Reverters may be ideal candidates for secondary prevention Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials. HIGHLIGHTS: Reverters had more longitudinal cognitive decline than those who remained cognitively normal. Predictors of reversion: younger age, better cognition, and negative amyloid biomarker status. Reverting from CDR 0.5 to 0 is a risk factor for future conversion to CDR > 0. CDR reversion may be a transitional phase in Alzheimer's Disease progression. CDR reverters may be ideal for Alzheimer's disease secondary prevention trials.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionBiomarkersCognitionDisease ProgressionHumansMental Status and Dementia TestsBiomarkersAlzheimer diseasebiomarkersclinical dementia rating scaleclinical reversioncognitiondementia

Identifiers

PMID38224146
PMCPMC10984446

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.