↓ Skip to main content

Imaging endpoints for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Imaging endpoints for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13195-014-0087-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Cash, Jonathan D Rohrer, Natalie S Ryan, Sebastien Ourselin, Nick C Fox

Abstract

As the need to develop a successful disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) becomes more urgent, imaging is increasingly used in therapeutic trials. We provide an overview of how the different imaging modalities are used in AD studies and the current regulatory guidelines for their use in clinical trials as endpoints. We review the current literature for results of imaging endpoints of efficacy and safety in published clinical trials. We start with trials in mild to moderate AD, where imaging (largely magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) has long played a role in inclusion and exclusion criteria; more recently, MRI has been used to identify adverse events and to measure rates of brain atrophy. The advent of amyloid imaging using positron emission tomography has led to trials incorporating amyloid measurements as endpoints and incidentally to the recognition of the high proportion of amyloid-negative individuals that may be recruited into these trials. Ongoing and planned trials now commonly include multimodality imaging: amyloid positron emission tomography, MRI and other modalities. At the same time, the failure of recent large profile trials in mild to moderate AD together with the realisation that there is a long prodromal period to AD has driven a push to move studies to earlier in the disease. Imaging has particularly important roles, alongside other biomarkers, in assessing efficacy because conventional clinical outcomes may have limited ability to detect treatment effects in these early stages.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Researcher 18 20%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Neuroscience 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Physics and Astronomy 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,763,065
of 12,561,272 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#367
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,587
of 288,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,561,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 288,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.