ReviewExpert review of neurotherapeutics2026
Speech and language outcome measures in clinical trials of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.
Review in Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The include network: Advancing cross-linguistic equity in brain health research.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlongside core diagnostic symptoms, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) involve early and pervasive speech-language impairments (SLI), often appearing in preclinical stages and capturing disease severity. However, speech language outcome measures are under-represented in clinical trials, missing out on critical clinical outcome assessments (COAs). AREAS COVERED: The purpose of this review is to survey the findings from classical (analogical) and novel (digital) speech-language measures as pathways toward more precise diagnosis and response to treatment indices in interventional clinical trials. This narrative review covers two main areas; first, it examines the strengths and limitations of SL measures in traditional cognitive testing scales to identify adequate COAs for AD and PD. Second, it overviews findings on classical and digital COAs that hold great promise despite their widespread absence in clinical trials. EXPERT OPINION: Incorporating strategic SL COAs in clinical trials may identify early, severity-sensitive deficits and enhance the clinical insights thus obtained. The modification of clinical trial designs will nevertheless be required to increase sensitivity to identify meaningful clinical outcomes.
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.