Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Cognitive data harmonization in the ADRC Network and beyond-Past, present, and future
Crane PK, Li C, Cohen T, Seitz A, Rhodes E, Choi SE, Lee M, Mukherjee S et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2026-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) includes extensive cognitive data contributed by Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) since 2005. The UDS has evolved over time and is on its fourth iteration. In addition to this core dataset, individual ADRCs have administered augmented neuropsychological batteries to research participants that go beyond the UDS. Here we describe ongoing efforts and future plans to optimize use of these data with modern psychometric methods. Modern psychometric methods address challenges from an evolving battery of cognitive tests. To date, most efforts using modern psychometric methods have focused on harmonization and co-calibration of ADRCs' UDS and non-UDS cognitive data, while recent efforts address additional areas such as subjective cognitive impairment. Modern psychometric methods provide a workable framework for anticipated future developments, including digital cognitive testing and analyses of spoken responses. These methods facilitate optimal use of NACC's data riches to further its mission to facilitate collaborative research. HIGHLIGHTS: National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) data collection includes an extensive cognitive battery that has changed over time. An ambitious project has harmonized and co-calibrated cognitive domain scores for memory, executive functioning, and language. Scores and their standard errors are available from the NACC. Those scores are co-calibrated with domain scores from many additional studies, facilitating cross-study scientific investigation. Future opportunities include digital data collection, consideration of neuropsychiatric symptoms and subjective cognitive impairment, and other uses of the granular cognitive data.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Crane, P. K., Li, C., Cohen, T., Seitz, A., Rhodes, E., Choi, S. E., et al. (2026). Cognitive data harmonization in the ADRC Network and beyond-Past, present, and future. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71086
Vancouver
Crane PK, Li C, Cohen T, Seitz A, Rhodes E, Choi SE, et al. Cognitive data harmonization in the ADRC Network and beyond-Past, present, and future. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2026. doi:10.1002/alz.71086. PMID: 41549411.
BibTeX
@article{crane2026-41549411,
author = {Crane, P. K. and Li, C. and Cohen, T. and Seitz, A. and Rhodes, E. and Choi, S. E. and Lee, M. and Mukherjee, S. and others},
title = {{Cognitive data harmonization in the ADRC Network and beyond-Past, present, and future}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/alz.71086},
pmid = {41549411},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71086}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- HIGHLIGHTS: National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) data collection includes an extensive cognitive battery that has changed over time.
- An ambitious project has harmonized and co-calibrated cognitive domain scores for memory, executive functioning, and language.
- Scores and their standard errors are available from the NACC.
- Those scores are co-calibrated with domain scores from many additional studies, facilitating cross-study scientific investigation.
- Future opportunities include digital data collection, consideration of neuropsychiatric symptoms and subjective cognitive impairment, and other uses of the granular cognitive data.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41549411) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “network”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “network”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.