↓ Skip to main content

Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/alzrt127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne B Hendrix

Abstract

Recent biomarker research has improved the identification of individuals with very early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has demonstrated that biomarkers are sensitive for measuring progression in the pre-dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage and even pre-symptomatic or pre-MCI stage of AD. Because there are no validated biomarkers in AD, it is important to seek out clinical outcomes that are also sensitive for measuring progression in these very early stages of disease. Clinical outcomes are more subjective and more affected by measurement error than biomarkers but represent the core aspects of the disease and are critical for validation of biomarkers and for evaluation of clinical relevance. Identification of individuals with pre-MCI stages of AD will need to continue to rely on biomarkers, but the identification of individuals with MCI who will progress to AD can be achieved with biomarkers or clinical criteria. Although standard clinical outcomes have been shown to be less sensitive to progression than biomarker outcomes in MCI and pre-MCI populations, non-standard scoring has improved the performance of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale, making it more sensitive to progression. Neuropsychological cognitive testing items are optimal for measuring progression in pre-MCI populations, and current research is exploring the best ways to combine these items into a composite cognitive score with maximum responsiveness. In an MCI stage, cognitive, functional, and global items all change, and the best single composite score for measuring progression may involve all of these aspects of the disease. The best chance of success in demonstrating treatment effects in clinical trials will be achieved in a well-defined pre-MCI or MCI population and with an outcome that tracks well with clinical progression over time and with time. A partial least squares model can be used to identify these optimal weighted combinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Researcher 9 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 22%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 19 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,397
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,884
of 178,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 178,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.