Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 360

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Conversion to Alzheimer Disease Using Standardized Clinical Information

Daly, Ella, Zaitchik, Deborah, Copeland, Maura, Schmahmann, Jeremy, Gunther, Jeanette, Albert, Marilyn·2000·Archives of Neurology
DOI 10.1001/archneur.57.5.675
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify aspects of a standardized clinical assessment that can predict which individuals within the category of "questionable" Alzheimer disease (AD) have a high likelihood of converting to AD over time. DESIGN: Detailed semistructured interviews were performed at baseline and annually for 3 years. SETTING: University-based gerontology research program. PATIENTS: The patient population consisted of 165 individuals 65 years and older: 42 of the participants had a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of normal cognition (CDR rating, 0.0) and 123 had a rating of questionable AD (CDR rating, 0.5). After 3 years of follow-up, 23 of the 123 subjects with questionable AD were diagnosed with probable AD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interview was used to generate a summary measure based on the sum of 6 CDR categories, known as the Total Box Score. The responses to 32 selected questions from the interview also were examined. RESULTS: Likelihood of progression to AD during the follow-up period was strongly related to the Total Box Score. For example, more than 50% of individuals with a Total Box Score of 2.0 or higher at baseline developed AD during the follow-up interval, whereas about 10% of individuals with a Total Box Score of 1.0 or lower developed AD during this same period. Selected questions from the standardized clinical interview also were highly predictive of subsequent conversion to AD among the study population. Eight selected questions from the clinical interview at baseline, combined with the CDR Total Box Score, identified 88.6% of such individuals accurately (questionable group, 82/91; converter group, 19/23). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized clinical assessment can be used to identify the subgroup of individuals within the category of questionable AD who have a high likelihood of converting to AD over time. Subjects who met the criteria for questionable AD had a variety of trajectories during a 3-year follow-up, suggesting that diverse factors may influence the functional changes observed in this population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.57.5.675

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Daly, E., Zaitchik, D., Copeland, M., Schmahmann, J., Gunther, J., & Albert, M.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2000-05-01
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
675
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archneur.57.5.675
OpenAlex
W2027467488
Cited by
360
References
4
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.