Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41972916›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2026

Statistical models for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: Lessons learned from the DIAN-TU Platform Trial.

Yan Li, Guoqiao Wang, Chengjie Xiong, Guogen Shan, Yuchen Cao, Jorge Llibre-Guerra, Jason Hassenstab, Eric McDade, Randall J Bateman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Yan LiDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1340-6694
Guoqiao WangDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6808-8737
Chengjie XiongDivision of Biostatistics, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0044-4499
Guogen ShanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8690-6599
Yuchen CaoDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jorge Llibre-GuerraDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jason HassenstabDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Eric McDadeDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Randall J BatemanDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

DIAN-TU Primary Prevention Trial NfL Characterization Admin SuppU01AG059798 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MCDADE, ERIC MARTIN · 2018 to 2025
$97.9M
DIAN-TU: Tau Next Generation Prevention Trial - Administrative SupplementR01AG068319 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI RANDALL J BATEMAN · 2020 to 2026
$81.4M
DIAN-TU Next Generation Prevention Trial - Data Request Management SupplementR01AG053267 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2017 to 2023
$34.9M
Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network Trials Unit - Adaptive Prevention TrialR01AG046179 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2014 to 2019
$26.6M
DOMINANTLY INHERITED ALZHEIMER NETWORK TRIAL: AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT DEMENTIAU01AG042791 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2013 to 2018
$8.9M
DIAN-TU: Next Generation Prevention TrialR56AG053267 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2016 to 2016
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046179NIA NIH HHS R01 AG053267NIA NIH HHS R01 AG068319NIA NIH HHS R56 AG053267NIA NIH HHS U01 AG042791NIA NIH HHS U01 AG059798NIH HHS 1R21AG08405401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials often involve uneven follow-up durations and long-term open-label extensions (OLE), yet conventional statistical models are typically designed for fixed schedules, limiting their efficiency in such settings.ObjectiveTo describe and illustrate alternative statistical modeling approaches developed and implemented in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit platform trial to optimally leverage data with irregular and extended follow-up.MethodsWe present three complementary models: (1) a Cox proportional hazards model for recurrent disease progression events that uses all observed worsening events rather than only the first event; (2) a parametric disease progression model based on estimated years from expected symptom onset that estimates proportional slowing or time delay in disease progression; and (3) piecewise linear mixed-effects models tailored to the "gap" period between the double-blind phase and OLE, accommodating variable off-treatment intervals and missing interim data. All methods are illustrated with hypothetical examples, and ready-to-use SAS code is provided in the Supplemental Material.ResultsThe proposed models successfully handle complex longitudinal data structures typical trials with OLE phases, offering greater statistical efficiency and more comprehensive capture of treatment effects over extended periods compared with traditional approaches.ConclusionsThese flexible, efficient statistical models are well-suited for rare disease and long-duration AD trials. Wider adoption and further validation of these approaches may enhance the power and interpretability of future neurodegenerative disease trials.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseClinical Trials as TopicModels, StatisticalDisease ProgressionDouble-Blind MethodHumansProportional Hazards ModelsAlzheimer's diseaseclinical trial statisticsCox modeldisease progression modelingdominantly inherited Alzheimer's diseasegap-period analysisopen-label extensionrecurrent events

Identifiers

PMID41972916
PMCPMC13351097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.