Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41088262›Full record

Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2025

Recruitment and retention in a preclinical AD trial: comparisons between academic and non-academic sites.

Marina Ritchie, Kedir Hussen, Oliver Langford, Christian Navarro, Zara Kotadiya, Michael C Donohue, Paul Aisen, Reisa A Sperling, Joshua D Grill, Rema Raman

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Research satisfaction among participants in a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Marina RitchieAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA. ritchiem@usc.edu.
Kedir HussenAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Oliver LangfordAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Christian NavarroUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Zara KotadiyaUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Michael C DonohueAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Paul AisenAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Reisa A SperlingCenter for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Joshua D GrillUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Rema RamanAlzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, University of Southern California, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants at various site types including research-focused academic institutions and independent non-academic sites. Limited research has examined the impact of site type on recruitment and retention outcomes.

methodsTo evaluate potential differences between site types, we used data from the Anti-Amyloid Treatment for Asymptomatic AD (A4) trial, the largest completed preclinical AD trial to date. We first compared the frequency of varying recruitment sources between site types. We then examined potential differences in participant- and site-level characteristics. To assess potential site type differences in retention, we fit a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for variables associated with site type. For participants who prematurely discontinued, we examined potential differences by site type in reasons for dropout.

resultsOne thousand and fifty-eight participants were randomized at 50 academic (N = 835) and 15 non-academic (N = 223) sites in North America. Academic sites had higher proportions of participants recruited through earned media and organizational referrals and lower proportions recruited through internal referrals and advertisements, compared to non-academic sites. Participant-level characteristics differed between site types. Compared to non-academic sites, academic sites had higher proportions of participants with a family history of dementia and a professional degree (highest education category), but lower proportions of individuals with a history of diabetes, a CDR-SB score above 0, and belonging to a racial and ethnic underrepresented group. Though the results were not statistically significant, non-academic sites had a higher screening rate (number of participants screened/site/month), but a lower randomization rate (randomized/screened) compared to academic sites. No site type differences in completion rates were observed. When examining reasons for discontinuation, we found that among the 72 participants who discontinued the trial at non-academic sites, 56 (77.8%) withdrew consent or were lost to follow up. In contrast, 140 out of 243 (57.6%) participants who discontinued the trial in academic sites withdrew consent or were lost to follow up.

conclusionOur findings shed light on important site type differences that investigators should consider when making choices around site, design, and conduct in multisite preclinical AD trials.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseasePatient SelectionAcademic Medical CentersAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient DropoutsClinical trialsPreclinical alzheimer’s diseaseRecruitmentRetentionSite type

Identifiers

PMID41088262
PMCPMC12522582

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.