Observational studyJAMA network open2025
Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of working memory training on patient and informant reported executive function in mild cognitive impairment: an interventional study.BMC neurology · 2025Trial
- 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
- The Use of Digital Neurocognitive Assessments to Assess Traumatic Brain Injury and Dementia in Older Trauma Patients: An Emergency Department Feasibility Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Increased Worry Associated with Self-Reported, but Not Informant-Reported, Subjective Cognitive Decline Predicts Increased Risk of Incident Dementia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Association between insecticide exposomics and cognitive function in older adults: an observational study based on NHANES 2011-2014.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Subjective report of cognitive and functional decline from participant-study partner dyads can efficiently assess risk of cognitive impairment and clinical progression. Accuracy of self-report subjective cognitive decline may be limited by lack of awareness about one's own cognitive abilities in adults with MCI and dementia, and the extent to which discordance between self- and study partner-report is associated with diagnosis of cognitive impairment is unknown. Objective: To investigate the association between discordance between self- and study partner-reported cognitive and/or functional decline and MCI diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite, cross-sectional study used baseline data from 2 longitudinal, observational studies. A total of 921 participant-study partner dyads enrolled in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) from December 2016 to July 2022, and 279 dyads enrolled in the Brain Health Registry Electronic Validation of Online Methods Study (eVAL) from January 2020 to July 2023 were included. Exposures: Participants and study partners completed the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog). Participants completed a demographics survey and the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The model selection procedure in ADNI identified variables, which were included in a model that was externally validated in the eVAL cohort. The primary outcome was MCI vs cognitively unimpaired (CU) among participants. Results: ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. The model distinguished CU vs MCI in the validation cohort with an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.80), and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99) based on a regression model. The model included 4 discordance metrics, participant demographics (gender, age, and education), study partner demographics (gender and cohabitation), and depressive symptoms (GDS score). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 1200 dyads, measures of ECog score discordance helped distinguish CU from MCI individuals with high specificity. Participant and study partner agreement on lack of observed changes in the participant was associated with lower likelihood of MCI, highlighting the value of dyadic discordance metrics for ruling out MCI in diverse settings.
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.