ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2024
Predicting CDR status over 36 months with a recall-based digital cognitive biomarker.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: A review of studies using ADNI data (2023 to June 2025).Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Review
- Clinical features, biomarker profiles, and neuroimaging characteristics in patients from memory clinic in china: The Shanghai Memory Study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Cortical morphology changes in default mode network regions as predictors of cognitive decline in relation to amyloid and tau deposits.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Predicting CDR status over 36 months with a recall-based digital cognitive biomarker.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.