Article in Applied neuropsychology. Adult. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.
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
7 authors.
Lisa V GravesPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Zachary ConawayPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Mathilde WebergPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Jennifer LozanoPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Elizabeth MercerPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Maiya LarryPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Lorraine VergoniaPsychology Department, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA.
Funding
National Alzheimer's Coordinating CenterU24AG072122 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI STEPHENS, KARI A · 2021 to 2025
$45.8M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062422 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Katherine P Rankin · 2019 to 2026
$36.9M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062421 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BRADFORD C DICKERSON · 2019 to 2026
$36.5M
UCSD Shiley-Marcos Alzheimer's Disease Research Center P30P30AG062429 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DOUGLAS R GALASKO · 2019 to 2026
$34.9M
Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG062715 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Sanjay Asthana · 2019 to 2026
$34.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062677 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KEJAL KANTARCI · 2019 to 2026
$33.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066514 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Margaret Sewell · 2020 to 2026
$31.0M
Yale Alzheimer Disease Research CenterP30AG066508 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN M STRITTMATTER · 2020 to 2026
$30.2M
Research Education CoreP30AG066462 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PHILIP L DE JAGER · 2020 to 2026
$30.1M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066468 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI C. Elizabeth Shaaban · 2020 to 2026
$29.4M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066507 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Corinne Pettigrew · 2020 to 2026
$29.3M
University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066509 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Amanda D. Boyd · 2020 to 2026
Functional assessment in neurocognitive evaluation is often provided via informant reports. These subjective reports can vary based on the characteristics of informants and their relationships with participants, such as informant sex. However, whether informant sex intersects with participant sex to impact subjective ratings of participants' daily functioning, and whether such effects mirror observed patterns in neuropsychological performance, has not been adequately examined with ethnoracially diverse samples. We examined differences among participant-informant sex-based dyads on subjective informant reports of participants' daily functioning (assessed via the Functional Activities Questionnaire [FAQ]), and whether any observed differences on reported functioning corresponded to differences in objective participant performance on neuropsychological performance, among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino (n = 543), non-Hispanic Black (NHB; n = 1030), and non-Hispanic White (NHW; n = 5356) adults in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center cohort (n = 6929). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests revealed significant dyad differences on FAQ scores in the NHB (
Indexed as
Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overBlack or African AmericanFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsWhiteWhite PeopleAssessmentdaily functioningdementiafunctional activities questionnaire
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.
Sex-based dyad differences on informant reports of participants' daily functioning. · full record | Socratic