Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 692

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Development of Cognitive Instruments for Use in Clinical Trials of Antidementia Drugs: Additions to the Alzheimerʼs Disease Assessment Scale That Broaden Its Scope

Mohs, Richard C., Knopman, David, Petersen, Ronald C., Ferris, Steven H., Ernesto, Chris, Grundman, Michael, Sano, Mary, Bieliauskas, Linas, Geldmacher, David, Clark, Chris, Thai, Leon J.·1997·Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders
DOI 10.1097/00002093-199700112-00003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials. As part of an overall ADCS protocol to develop new instruments to be used in trials of treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), patients with mild to moderate AD and cognitively normal elderly were administered a battery of five tests at least three times over 1 year. The tests included word list learning with delayed free recall, a recognition memory test for faces, a series of letter and digit cancellation tests to measure concentration, tests of praxis, and a series of maze completion tasks designed to assess planning and executive function. A version of the digit cancellation task was reliable and sensitive to a broad range of dementia severity so that it could provide a useful addition to the present version of the ADAS. Performance on the word learning task with delayed recall and a subset of the mazes task were impaired even in mild AD, so these tasks may be useful in trials involving mild or at-risk subjects. Performances on the facial recognition task and on the praxis tasks were not related to dementia severity, so these tasks would not be useful to evaluate treatments. Therefore, the major outcome of this investigation was the identification of some potential addtions to the present ADAS that extend both the cognitive domains and the range of symptom severity covered.

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 · 10.1097/00002093-199700112-00003

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mohs, R. C., Knopman, D., Petersen, R. C., Ferris, S. H., Ernesto, C., Grundman, M., Sano, M., Bieliauskas, L., Geldmacher, D., Clark, C., & Thai, L. J.
Venue
Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1997
Volume
11
Pages
13-21
ISSN
0893-0341 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00002093-199700112-00003
OpenAlex
W2024719735
Cited by
692
References
0
FWCI
4.08
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.