Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Dementias Platform UK Clinical Studies and Great Minds Register: protocol of a targeted brain health studies recontact database
Koychev I, Young S, Holve H, Ben Yehuda M, Gallacher J.. BMJ open, 2020-11-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction The case for de-risking neurodegenerative research and development through highly informative experimental medicine studies early in the disease process is strong. Such studies depend on the availability of genetic as well as high-granularity, longitudinal, phenotypic data in healthy ageing individuals who can be recruited into early phase trials on the basis of their perceived dementia risk. Until now the creation of such research infrastructure has been hampered by the lack of expense and time required to gather the rich longitudinal data needed for adequate risk stratification. Dementias Platform UK (DPUK) is a public-private partnership that brings together data from over 40 cohorts in a standardised framework, which represent an until now unavailable opportunity to create such a resource through a streamlined brain health recontact platform based on existing cohorts, as well as prospectively collected data. Methods and analysis The DPUK recontact platform consists of an opt-in (Great Minds, GM) and an opt-out component (Clinical Studies Register, CSR). GM requires invited DPUK cohort participants to consent to targeted recontact at the GM website and then to provide self-reported demographic and medical history information relevant to recruitment into clinical studies. Participants complete prospective browser-based and smartphone-based cognitive tests and are given the option for remote genetic and actigraphy testing. The GM data are linked to the retrospective DPUK cohort dataset, including genotypic and longitudinal phenotypic data. The CSR is a solution for cohorts explicitly allowing targeted recontact. Approved studies provide prescreening criteria on the basis of the CSR/GM dataset, and individuals meeting these criteria are offered participation directly (GM) or through the parent DPUK cohort (CSR). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the outcomes relevant to the number of participants engaged with the register. Its sample size is not defined but is limited by the size of the DPUK parent cohorts. Ethics and dissemination The database was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee, reference 18/SC/0268 on the 27th of June 2018 and amended on the 1st of November 2019. The availability of the register to researchers will be disseminated through DPUK's official communication channels as well as national and international scientific meetings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Koychev, I., Young, S., Holve, H., Ben Yehuda, M., & Gallacher, J. (2020). Dementias Platform UK Clinical Studies and Great Minds Register: protocol of a targeted brain health studies recontact database. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040766
Vancouver
Koychev I, Young S, Holve H, Ben Yehuda M, Gallacher J. Dementias Platform UK Clinical Studies and Great Minds Register: protocol of a targeted brain health studies recontact database. BMJ open. 2020. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040766. PMID: 33247021.
BibTeX
@article{koychev2020-33247021,
author = {Koychev, I. and Young, S. and Holve, H. and Ben Yehuda, M. and Gallacher, J.},
title = {{Dementias Platform UK Clinical Studies and Great Minds Register: protocol of a targeted brain health studies recontact database}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040766},
pmid = {33247021},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040766}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Approved studies provide prescreening criteria on the basis of the CSR/GM dataset, and individuals meeting these criteria are offered participation directly (GM) or through the parent DPUK cohort (CSR).
- Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the outcomes relevant to the number of participants engaged with the register.
- Its sample size is not defined but is limited by the size of the DPUK parent cohorts.
- Ethics and dissemination The database was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee, reference 18/SC/0268 on the 27th of June 2018 and amended on the 1st of November 2019.
- The availability of the register to researchers will be disseminated through DPUK's official communication channels as well as national and international scientific meetings.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 33247021) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 “brain-health”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “brain-health”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.