ReviewNeurology and therapy2026
Defining and Measuring Cognitive Decline and Clinical Relevance.
Review in Neurology and therapy, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current frameworks for cognitive impairment increasingly incorporate biomarker information, yet clinical classification remains grounded in the demonstration of objective cognitive decline and its functional consequences. This paper examines the balance between biological and clinical definitions and discusses implications for diagnosis, care, and research. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild neurocognitive disorder represents a clinically meaningful intermediate stage between normal aging and dementia, enabling early detection, timely intervention, and longitudinal monitoring. In routine care, comprehensive neuropsychological testing for all patients is not feasible; instead, a tiered diagnostic approach combining brief screening, clinical assessment, informant information, and targeted referral appears most practical and diagnostically robust. In research settings, outcomes that integrate cognitive performance with functional measures better capture clinically meaningful change than cognition-only endpoints. However, heterogeneity in definitions and outcome measures limits comparability across studies, and challenges remain regarding feasibility, cultural validity, and the integration of patient-relevant outcomes. Clinically useful definitions of cognitive impairment should integrate objective deficits with real-world impact. Pragmatic staged diagnostic pathways are best suited for routine care, while future work should focus on standardization, feasibility, and the alignment of research outcomes with patient-relevant benefits.
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.