ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Cognitive screening biases in a secondary prevention Alzheimer's disease clinical trial.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlzheimer's disease (AD) prevention trials have multiple screening steps to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with AD biomarker evidence. Cognitive/functional screening tests may be biased in underrepresented groups, thereby impacting trial eligibility.
methods6669 participants screened for the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's (A4) study were grouped by ethnoracial background and testing language. Ethnoracial/language differences in ineligibility reason, cognitive/functional test performance, and amyloid positivity rates were examined.
resultsEthnoracial minorities were least likely to meet eligibility criteria. Patterns of incorrect Mini-Mental State Examination items and impaired Clinical Dementia Rating functional domains differed between groups excluded for impaired cognition/function, suggesting test biases. The Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test yielded more similar exclusion rates across groups than Logical Memory. Cognitive/functional screening biases may impact subsequent biomarker screening as amyloid positivity rates were lowest in ethnoracial minorities. DISCUSSION: Biases in cognitive/functional screening tests may disproportionately exclude ethnoracial minorities in AD prevention trials.
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.