ArticleJournal of applied statistics2026
Testing disease progression under the proportional reduction in decline in Alzheimer's disease studies.
Article in Journal of applied statistics, 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.
- Statistical inference for saved time based on disease progression curves in Alzheimer's disease research.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the treatment-placebo difference in Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials, saved time measure provides an easy interpretation of the treatment effect in months as an alternative measure to the treatment-placebo difference at the pre-specified visit that is often estimated from the fitted model. The current method to estimate saved time utilizes the disease progression curve of the placebo group, and this method is primarily descriptive. To fill the gap of the statistical inference for saved time, we propose to develop the likelihood ratio test and the score test under the proportional reduction in decline model. One AD trial data set was utilized to compare the proposed tests and the existing Wald-type test with regard to type I error rate and statistical power. We found that the likelihood ratio test and the score test have similar statistical power, but the score test has better control with regard to type I error rate. The two new tests are more powerful than the Wald test when a new treatment has proportional reduction in decline or constant delay, while the Wald test can have a higher statistical power when a constant treatment effect is expected from a new treatment.
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.