Cited by 110Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychological Testing and AssessmentAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

The CERAD Neuropsychologic Battery Total Score and the Progression of Alzheimer Disease

Open access
Rossetti, Heidi C., Munro Cullum, C., Hynan, Linda S., Lacritz, Laura H.·2010·Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) neuropsychologic battery as a valid measure of cognitive progression in Alzheimer disease (AD) by deriving annualized CERAD Total Change Scores and corresponding confidence intervals in AD and controls from which to define clinically meaningful change. METHOD: Subjects included 383 normal control (NC) and 655 AD subjects with serial data from the CERAD registry database. Annualized CERAD Total Change Scores were derived and Reliable Change Indexes (RCIs) calculated to establish statistically reliable change values. CERAD Change Scores were compared with annualized change scores from the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) Sum of Boxes, and Blessed Dementia Rating Scale (BDRS). RESULTS: For the CERAD Total Score, the AD sample showed significantly greater decline than the NC sample over the 4-year interval, with AD subjects declining an average of 22.2 points compared with the NCs' improving an average 2.8 points from baseline to last visit [Group x Time interaction [F(4,1031)=246.08, P<0.001)]. By Visit 3, the majority of AD subjects (65.2%) showed a degree of cognitive decline that fell outside the RCI. CERAD Change Scores significantly correlated (P<0.001) with MMSE (r=-0.66), CDR (r=-0.42), and BDRS (r=-0.38) change scores. CONCLUSION: Results support the utility of the CERAD Total Score as a measure of AD progression and provide comparative data for annualized change in CERAD Total Score and other summary measures.

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/wad.0b013e3181b76415

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Clinically meaningful cognitive decline is defined as a decline in cognitive function of 0.5 or more SDs from baseline cognitive scores.

    “Experts have defined clinically meaningful cognitive decline as a decline in cognitive function of 0.5 or more SDs from baseline cognitive scores.36,37,38”

    From Sex differences in cognitive decline among US adults (2021) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods define meaningful cognitive change using a Reliable Change Index (RCI) based on test–retest data, not a decline of 0.5 or more standard deviations from baseline. The Discussion specifies a threshold of at least ±10.51 CERAD points under the RCI’s 90% confidence interval. The available passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]Storandt M Grant EA Miller JP Rates of progression in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease Neurology 59 1034 1041 12370458
  2. [17]Clark CM Sheppard L Fillenbaum GG Variability in annual Mini-Mental State Examination Score in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease Archives of Neurology 1999 56 857 862 10404988

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rossetti, H. C., Munro Cullum, C., Hynan, L. S., & Lacritz, L. H.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rossetti, Heidi C.
  • Hynan, Linda S.
  • Lacritz, Laura H.
Venue
Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders
Published
2010-04
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
138-142
ISSN
0893-0341 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981940800
Cited by
110
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG012300, P30AG-12300)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, cognitive decline, disease progression, reliable change index, Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating, healthy controls, clinical outcome measures
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, 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