ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of vaccine ALZ-101 in patients with early Alzheimer's disease: randomised, controlled trial.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Trial
- ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
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
backgroundThe Alzheimer's Disease COMposite Score (ADCOMS) is more sensitive in clinical trials than conventional measures when assessing pre-dementia. This study compares ADCOMS trajectories using clustered progression characteristics to better understand different patterns of decline.
methodsPost-baseline ADCOMS values were analyzed for sensitivity using mean-to-standard deviation ratio (MSDR), partitioned by baseline diagnosis, comparing with the original scales upon which ADCOMS is based. Because baseline diagnosis was not a particularly reliable predictor of progression, individuals were also grouped into similar ADCOMS progression trajectories using clustering methods and the MSDR compared for each progression group.
resultsADCOMS demonstrated increased sensitivity for clinically important progression groups. ADCOMS did not show statistically significant sensitivity or clinical relevance for the less-severe baseline diagnoses and marginal progression groups.
conclusionsThis analysis complements and extends previous work validating the sensitivity of ADCOMS. The large data set permitted evaluation-in a novel approach-by the clustered progression group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.