Cited by 197Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Estimating long‐term multivariate progression from short‐term data

Open access
Donohue, Michael C., Jacqmin‐Gadda, Hélène, Le Goff, Mélanie, Thomas, Ronald G., Raman, Rema, Gamst, Anthony C., Beckett, Laurel A., Jack, Clifford R. +3 more·2014·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Motivation: Diseases that progress slowly are often studied by observing cohorts at different stages of disease for short periods of time. The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) follows elders with various degrees of cognitive impairment, from normal to impaired. The study includes a rich panel of novel cognitive tests, biomarkers, and brain images collected every 6 months for as long as 6 years. The relative timing of the observations with respect to disease pathology is unknown. We propose a general semiparametric model and iterative estimation procedure to estimate simultaneously the pathological timing and long‐term growth curves. The resulting estimates of long‐term progression are fine‐tuned using cognitive trajectories derived from the long‐term “Personnes Agées Quid” study. Results: We demonstrate with simulations that the method can recover long‐term disease trends from short‐term observations. The method also estimates temporal ordering of individuals with respect to disease pathology, providing subject‐specific prognostic estimates of the time until onset of symptoms. When the method is applied to ADNI data, the estimated growth curves are in general agreement with prevailing theories of the Alzheimer's disease cascade. Other data sets with common outcome measures can be combined using the proposed algorithm. Availability: Software to fit the model and reproduce results with the statistical software R is available as the grace package. ADNI data can be downloaded from the Laboratory of NeuroImaging.

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 · 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.10.003

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A similar proportion of cognitively unimpaired elderly persons has abnormal amyloid biomarkers.

    “and a similar proportion has abnormal amyloid biomarkers [33,53–55,60,70–73].”

    From NIA‐AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (2018) · cites this paper as [72]

    The ADNI and PAQUID results (section 5; page unavailable) identify 100 cognitively normal ADNI participants in an Amyloid+ group and 190 in an Amyloid− group. This supports the presence of abnormal amyloid biomarkers in some cognitively unimpaired participants, but the paper does not establish the stated proportion for cognitively unimpaired elderly people generally or specify what it is ‘similar’ to. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A widely held view is that amyloid biomarkers represent the earliest evidence of AD neuropathologic change currently detectable in living persons.

    “Consequently, a widely held view is that amyloid biomarkers represent the earliest evidence of AD neuropathologic change currently detectable in living persons [9,11,72,103,104].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donohue, M. C., Jacqmin‐Gadda, H., Le Goff, M., Thomas, R. G., Raman, R., Gamst, A. C., Beckett, L. A., Jack, C. R., Weiner, M. W., Dartigues, J., & Aisen, P. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • INSERM, U897 Biostatistics Department Bordeaux France
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Donohue, Michael C.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-24
Volume
10
Issue
5S
Pages
S400-10
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2110759468
Cited by
197
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (1KL2RR031978)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
disease progression, Alzheimer's disease
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Biological, Prognosis, Software, Multivariate Analysis, Databases, Factual, Disease Progression

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