ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2025
Modified Cued Recall Test: Longitudinal Analysis of Test Versions and Item Recall in Adults With Down Syndrome.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdults with Down syndrome (DS) have an elevated risk and early age of onset for Alzheimer's disease (AD). To support upcoming clinical AD trials, there is a critical need to establish cognitive outcome measures that can be used to capture intervention effects. One measure that has successfully been used to detect AD-related cognitive decline in the DS population is a measure of episodic memory, the modified Cued Recall Test (mCRT). Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status.
methodParticipants were 272 adults with DS aged 25-81 (mean age = 43.12 years, SD = 9.79). Study procedures were completed at three cycles of data collection: baseline, 16-month follow-up and 32-month follow-up. Participants were enrolled in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium-Down Syndrome longitudinal study and completed the mCRT as part of a multiday evaluation. Comparisons were made between the A and B versions of the mCRT in recall and intrusion scores. Participants' ratio of free relative to cued recall was also examined at baseline and longitudinally. Participant performance was compared by age group, clinical AD status (cognitively stable [CS], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or AD dementia) and premorbid level of intellectual disability (ID).
resultsVersion differences were identified, with the most salient differences in the moderate and severe/profound ID groups. The mCRT free recall declined with age in CS participants. Free and cued recall scores were lower in those with MCI and AD dementia, with the exception of the mild ID MCI group, whose cued recall scores were not significantly different from the CS group. Decline across 32 months (mCRT total score decline of 1.29 points/year) was observed for CS participants beginning at ≥ 50 years old, with more pronounced declines in adults with DS with an MCI or AD dementia diagnosis (3.36 and 4.20 points/year, respectively).
conclusionCharacterising test version differences and participant free versus cued recall performance on the mCRT is important for understanding performance under testing conditions and to maximise the sensitivity of clinical interventions to capture meaningful effects. Our findings suggest that clinical AD trials for DS should be cautious about using both versions of the mCRT. Examining the profile of free relative to cued recall may enhance sensitivity for detecting treatment benefits for adults with DS across the range of premorbid ID levels.
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.