ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Study partner profile effects on CDR-SB change in anti-amyloid therapy evaluation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), a primary outcome in anti-amyloid therapy (AAT) trials, integrates information from participants and study partners. CDR-SB scores may vary by study partner characteristics, but their impact on 18-month change interpretation remains unclear.
methodsUsing the NACC Uniform Data Set, we fitted linear mixed-effects calibration models in an Alzheimer's disease (AD)-primary early symptomatic cohort and propagated study partner-associated coefficients through Monte Carlo simulations. We estimated components of 18-month CDR-SB change under observed profile changes, simulated follow-up imbalance in a common female living-with profile, and tipping-point scenarios. Analyses were repeated in amyloid-positive and trial-like cohorts.
resultsThe AD-primary cohort included 15,061 participants and 7,683 baseline-to-18-month pairs. Observed profile changes generated a negligible cohort-level component (mean 0.0014 points, 95% simulation interval 0.0006 to 0.0022). Simulated follow-up imbalance generated differences of 0.014 to 0.071 points across 10% to 50% reassignment. Under the primary calibration model, generating a 0.45-point difference, equal to the reported Clarity AD CDR-SB group difference, required median net imbalance >100% and was feasible in 48% of iterations. Amyloid-positive and trial-like cohorts had lower median tipping points but wider intervals, reflecting coefficient imprecision. DISCUSSION: In the large AD-primary cohort, observed study partner profile changes and simulated follow-up imbalance generated CDR-SB differences that were small relative to the 0.45-point Clarity AD benchmark. Biomarker-confirmed estimates were less stable because of coefficient imprecision. These findings suggest limited impact under typical AD-primary conditions but support systematic study partner profile collection and sensitivity analyses in observational and external-comparator CDR-SB studies for AAT evaluation.
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.