ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Implications of practice effects for the design of Alzheimer clinical trials.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive training and promoting a healthy lifestyle in isolated REM sleep behavior disorder: The randomized controlled trial CogTrAiL-RBD.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Implications of practice effects for the design of Alzheimer clinical trials.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPractice effects (PEs) are a well-known potential confound in natural history studies of longitudinal cognitive decline in aging and early-stage Alzheimer's disease. The implication of PEs on Alzheimer's disease clinical trials is less well understood, although we have previously speculated that a "run-in" period of repeated cognitive assessments prior to randomization may improve the efficiency of clinical trials [Jacobs et al.
methodsTo investigate this, we used the cognitive battery within the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set to characterize the potential impact of PEs on clinical trial design and outcome measures. The analysis restricted to
resultsPEs were large, often exceeding the magnitude of annual rate of change observed in later assessments. Annualized rate of change, and therefore target treatment effect sufficient to achieve a specified percentage reduction in rate of decline, was larger after run-in. Sample size projections for the run-in design were a fraction of those required for trials without run-in. Weighting parameters that optimize composite outcome performance were also different for the two designs, underscoring the importance of considering design in the construction of composite outcomes. DISCUSSION: Clinical trials randomizing after a run-in period measure treatment efficacy relative to decline unbiased by PEs, and require smaller sample size. Highlights: In the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) cohort practice effects often exceed annualized rate of change.Run-in clinical trial designs can be used to extinguish practice effects.Rate of decline after run-in is faster and unbiased by practice effects.Run-in designs correctly target the most clinically relevant outcome signal.Practice effects also impact weighting of optimal composite measures.
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.