ArticleScientific reports2026
Sensitivity comparison of longitudinal cognitive function indicators of Alzheimer's disease after mild cognitive impairment: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical for early intervention. Many existing models lack the ability to capture the nonlinear nature of cognitive decline and individual heterogeneity. This study employed a semi‑parametric joint model to analyze longitudinal cognitive trajectories and identify robust predictors of conversion. Data from 596 participants (184 AD converters, 412 stable MCI) were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Longitudinal assessments included ADAS‑Cog13, ADAS‑Cog11, CDR‑SB, FAQ, RAVLT‑IR, RAVLT‑L, and MMSE. A semi‑parametric joint model combining B‑splines for the longitudinal process with a Cox survival submodel was fitted for each cognitive measure. Model performance was evaluated using AIC, BIC, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), time‑dependent C‑index, dynamic AUC, and calibration curves. Subgroup analyses were conducted by APOE‑ε4 carrier status. In multivariable joint models, APOE‑ε4 carriage was a consistent risk factor (HR range: 1.38-1.77). Higher scores on ADAS‑Cog13 (HR = 3.71 per SD), ADAS‑Cog11 (HR = 2.71), CDR‑SB (HR = 3.79), and FAQ (HR = 2.85) increased the hazard of conversion, whereas higher scores on RAVLT‑IR (HR = 0.23), RAVLT‑L (HR = 0.14), and MMSE (HR = 0.53) were protective. All models showed high ICCs (0.94-0.98) and moderate‑to‑good predictive accuracy over 2, 5, and 8 year horizons (C‑index: 0.585-0.668). CDR‑SB and FAQ exhibited the strongest effect sizes and clearest dose‑dependent trajectories across APOE‑ε4 subgroups. Calibration curves demonstrated good agreement between predicted and observed survival. The semi‑parametric joint model effectively captures nonlinear cognitive‑functional decline and provides validated predictions of AD risk. APOE‑ε4 genotype combined with longitudinal monitoring of CDR‑SB and FAQ offers a robust framework for stratifying progression risk in clinical MCI management.
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.