Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160600›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2024

Comparison of subjective cognitive decline and polygenic risk score in the prediction of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

Kira Trares, Hannah Stocker, Joshua Stevenson-Hoare, Laura Perna, Bernd Holleczek, Konrad Beyreuther, Ben Schöttker, Hermann Brenner

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Kira TraresDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. k.trares@dkfz-heidelberg.de.
Hannah StockerDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joshua Stevenson-HoareDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura PernaDepartment Genes and Environment, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Kraepelinstraße 2-10, 80804, Munich, Germany.
Bernd HolleczekSaarland Cancer Registry, Neugeländstraße 9, 66117, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Konrad BeyreutherNetwork Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Straße 20, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ben Schöttker *Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hermann Brenner *Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRS) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are associated with the risk of developing dementia. It remains to examine whether they can improve the established cardiovascular risk factors aging and dementia (CAIDE) model and how their predictive abilities compare.

methodsThe CAIDE model was applied to a sub-sample of a large, population-based cohort study (n = 5,360; aged 50-75) and evaluated for the outcomes of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) by calculating Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the area under the curve (AUC). The improvement of the CAIDE model by PRS and SCD was further examined using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) method and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

resultsDuring 17 years of follow-up, 410 participants were diagnosed with dementia, including 139 AD and 152 VD diagnoses. Overall, the CAIDE model showed high discriminative ability for all outcomes, reaching AUCs of 0.785, 0.793, and 0.789 for all-cause dementia, AD, and VD, respectively. Adding information on SCD significantly increased NRI for all-cause dementia (4.4%, p = 0.04) and VD (7.7%, p = 0.01). In contrast, prediction models for AD further improved when PRS was added to the model (NRI, 8.4%, p = 0.03). When APOE ε4 carrier status was included (CAIDE Model 2), AUCs increased, but PRS and SCD did not further improve the prediction.

conclusionsUnlike PRS, information on SCD can be assessed more efficiently, and thus, the model including SCD can be more easily transferred to the clinical setting. Nevertheless, the two variables seem negligible if APOE ε4 carrier status is available.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionDementia, VascularMultifactorial InheritanceAgedCohort StudiesDementiaFemaleGenetic Risk ScoreHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsAlzheimer’s diseaseCAIDECohort studyDementiaPolygenic risk scoreRisk predictionSubjective cognitive declineVascular dementia

Identifiers

PMID39160600
PMCPMC11331600

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.