ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Features predicting data exclusion in imaging studies of Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPositron emission tomography (PET) without usable or accompanying magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is typically excluded in quantitative analyses of Alzheimer's disease, potentially limiting study generalizability. We investigated participant features predicting data exclusion in magnetic resonance (MR)-dependent analyses and evaluated an existing MR-free PET pipeline to quantify these missing data.
methodsImaging, clinical, cognitive, and sociodemographic data were analyzed for 2119 individuals in a multi-site cohort. Agreement between MR-dependent and MR-free Centiloids (CL) assessed using intra-class correlations and features predicting data exclusion were examined using logistic regressions.
resultsMR-free and MR-dependent CLs generally agreed, but MR-free CLs underestimated MR-dependent cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Approximately 19.5% ( DISCUSSION: Data exclusion in imaging studies is not entirely random. Flexible quantification methods like MR-free PET could supplement traditional methods to improve generalizability in large, multi-site studies.
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.