Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42392863›Full record

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.

Adolfo Jiménez-Huete, Teresa Rognoni, Genoveva Montoya, Miguel Germán Borda, Mario Riverol, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Adolfo Jiménez-HueteDepartment of Neurology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain ajimenezh@unav.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7438-8763
Teresa RognoniDepartment of Neurology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5430-3830
Genoveva MontoyaDepartment of Neurology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-8993
Miguel Germán BordaDepartment of Neurology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5832-0603
Mario RiverolDepartment of Neurology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4383-9127
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

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

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionMental Status and Dementia TestsPatient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesALZHEIMER'S DISEASEIMMUNOTHERAPYNEUROPSYCHOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID42392863
PMCPMC13523048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.