Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39258756›Full record

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

Predicting CDR status over 36 months with a recall-based digital cognitive biomarker.

Davide Bruno, Ainara Jauregi-Zinkunegi, Jason R Bock, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predicting CDR status over 36 months with a recall-based digital cognitive biomarker.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Davide BrunoSchool of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1943-9905
Ainara Jauregi-ZinkunegiSchool of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1307-2989
Jason R BockEmbic Corporation, Newport Beach, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5415-2910
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Project 1U19AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI Duygu Tosun-Turgut · 2016 to 2026
$226.7M
EmbicNIA NIH HHS U19 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWord-list recall tests are routinely used for cognitive assessment, and process scoring may improve their accuracy. We examined whether Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) derived, process-based digital cognitive biomarkers (DCBs) at baseline predicted Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) longitudinally and compared them to standard metrics.

methodsAnalyses were performed with Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data from 330 participants (mean age = 71.4 ± 7.2). We conducted regression analyses predicting CDR at 36 months, controlling for demographics and genetic risk, with ADAS-Cog traditional scores and DCBs as predictors.

resultsThe best predictor of CDR at 36 months was M, a DCB reflecting recall ability (area under the curve = 0.84), outperforming traditional scores. Diagnostic results suggest that M may be particularly useful to identify individuals who are unlikely to decline. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that M outperforms ADAS-Cog traditional metrics and supports process scoring for word-list recall tests. More research is needed to determine further applicability with other tests and populations. HIGHLIGHTS: Process scoring and latent modeling were more effective than traditional scoring. Latent recall ability (M) was the best predictor of Clinical Dementia Rating decline at 36 months. The top digital cognitive biomarker model had odds ≈ 90 times greater than the top Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale model. Particularly high negative predictive value supports literature on cognitive testing as a useful screen. Consideration of both cognitive and pathological outcomes is needed.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkersMental RecallAgedAged, 80 and overCognitive DysfunctionDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsNeuropsychological TestsPredictive Value of TestsBiomarkersAlzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive subscaleClinical Dementia Ratingcognitive assessmentdigital cognitive biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID39258756
PMCPMC11485075

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.