↓ Skip to main content

Minimizing the Sample Sizes of Clinical Trials on Preclinical and Early Symptomatic Stage of Alzheimer Disease

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Minimizing the Sample Sizes of Clinical Trials on Preclinical and Early Symptomatic Stage of Alzheimer Disease
Published in
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, March 2018
DOI 10.14283/jpad.2018.16
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Luo, H. Weng, J. C. Morris, Chengjie Xiong

Abstract

Clinical trials of investigational drugs for Alzheimer disease (AD) increasingly focus on the prodromal (symptomatic) stage of the illness and now its preclinical (asymptomatic) stage. Sensitive and specific cognitive and functional endpoints are needed to track subtle cognitive and functional changes in the early and preclinical stages to minimize sample sizes in these trials. To identify informative items in a standard clinical assessment protocol and a psychometric battery that are predictive of onset of dementia symptom. Longitudinal retrospective study. Washington University (WU) Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (ADRC). A total of 735 individuals at least 65 years old and cognitively normal at baseline from a longitudinal clinical cohort at the WU Knight ADRC. The annual clinical assessment included a wide spectrum of functional and cognitive domains; a comprehensive psychometric battery was completed about 2 weeks after the clinical evaluation. Psychometricians are blinded to the results of the clinical evaluation and to the prior performance of the participants on the psychometric tests. The mean age at baseline of the 735 participants was 74.30 and 62.31% were female. 240 individuals developed prodromal dementia symptoms (consistent with mild cognitive impairment due to AD and with very mild AD dementia) during longitudinal follow-up (mean follow-up=6.79 years). Among a total of 562 items in the clinical and cognitive assessments under analysis, 292 (52%) were identified as informative because their longitudinal changes were predictive of symptomatic onset. When these items were used to form the functional and cognitive composites, the longitudinal rates of changes were free of a learning effect and captured subtle longitudinal progression prior to symptomatic onset. The rates of change were much greater right after the symptomatic onset than those from the functional and cognitive composites formed using non-informative items. Although the sample sizes for prevention trials (prior to symptomatic onset) using the informative items still yield large numbers, the sample sizes for early treatment trial (after symptomatic onset) was much smaller than those derived from all the items or from the non-informative items alone. The antecedent longitudinal changes in nearly half of the items in a clinical assessment protocol and a comprehensive cognitive battery did not show statistically significant ability to predict the dementia symptom onset, and hence may be non-informative to track the preclinical functional and cognitive progression of AD. The remaining items, on the other hand, captured some of the preclinical changes prior to the symptom onset, but performed much better right after the symptom onset. Currently ongoing prevention trials on preclinical AD of elderly individuals may need to re-assess the sample sizes and statistical power.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 23%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,344,642
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#301
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,511
of 351,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.