ArticleJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2026
Diagnostic accuracy of a two-cut-off approach using the FAQ/MMSE ratio and FAQ for clinical preselection of patients for anti-amyloid therapy.
Article in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) require efficient patient selection. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is the reference standard for staging, but it is time-consuming to administer. Simple tools to distinguish early-stage cognitive impairment (CDR 0.5-1) from more advanced stages (CDR 2-3) would therefore be of substantial clinical value.
methodsParticipants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohorts 1-3 with CDR ≥0.5 were analysed. Three logistic regression models using Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ) or the FAQ/MMSE ratio as predictors were developed. Two cut-offs per model were selected to ensure minimum sensitivity and specificity of 0.99, defining rule-out, rule-in and intermediate (uncertain) zones. Performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration and decision curve analysis.
resultsAmong 1533 ADNI participants with CDR ≥0.5, two-thirds (n=1022) were assigned to the training set and one-third (n=511) to the test set. FAQ/MMSE and FAQ showed excellent discrimination (area under the curve, AUC 0.97-0.98), outperforming MMSE (AUC 0.94-0.95). FAQ/MMSE demonstrated the best overall performance, although differences compared with FAQ were small and not statistically significant. Dual cut-offs for FAQ/MMSE (0.67 and 1.44) and FAQ (12 and 27) enabled clinically meaningful stratification, with 80% and 70% of participants classified into high-confidence zones, respectively. Results were consistent across the training and test sets.
conclusionsThe FAQ/MMSE ratio and FAQ score show high accuracy in distinguishing early-stage (CDR 0.5-1) from more advanced cognitive impairment (CDR 2-3). These simple measures may support the clinical preselection of patients for further evaluation in the context of anti-amyloid therapy.
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.