ReviewEuropean journal of neurology2026
Low Sensitivity of Neuropsychological Scales Hinder Detection of Potential Benefit of Treatments in Alzheimer's Disease: A Position Paper.
Review in European journal of neurology, 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.
- Digital music intervention and music therapy across the dementia care continuum: Randomized controlled trial.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the advent of Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's Disease (AD), the approval and commercialization of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies has been slow and contentious, particularly in Europe. The primary source of debate is the discrepancy between robust biological effects-namely, effective β-amyloid clearance-and modest clinical improvements, which, although statistically significant, often fail to reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) compared to placebo.
methodsThis paper highlights a confounding factor in the interpretation of the results of clinical trials: limited sensitivity of neuropsychological outcome measures. These tools, developed in the 1980s and only marginally updated, are not suited to detect subtle but meaningful cognitive changes in early disease stages.
resultsThe ADAS-Cog, the most commonly used cognitive endpoint, suffers from a substantial ceiling effect, impairing its ability to capture cognitive decline over short durations in prodromal populations. Likewise, functional scales such as the CDR-SB are inherently insensitive in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), as functional independence is, by definition, preserved. Moreover, the use of composite multidomain scales with high baseline scores may mask domain-specific improvements, further limiting a drug's capacity to reach MCID thresholds.
conclusionMethodological limitations risk undervaluing the therapeutic impact of treatment, particularly in trials targeting early or preclinical phases where changes are subtle and domain-specific. Urgent reconsideration of outcome measures is necessary to ensure accurate assessment of clinical efficacy and to avoid prematurely discarding potentially beneficial therapies.
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.