Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study
Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC, Ferris SH, Ernesto C, Grundman M, Sano M, Bieliauskas L et al.. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders, 1997-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
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 additions to the present ADAS that extend both the cognitive domains and the range of symptom severity covered.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mohs, R. C., Knopman, D., Petersen, R. C., Ferris, S. H., Ernesto, C., Grundman, M., et al. (1997). Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders.
Vancouver
Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC, Ferris SH, Ernesto C, Grundman M, et al. Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 1997. PMID: 9236948.
BibTeX
@article{mohs1997-9236948,
author = {Mohs, R. C. and Knopman, D. and Petersen, R. C. and Ferris, S. H. and Ernesto, C. and Grundman, M. and Sano, M. and Bieliauskas, L. and others},
title = {{Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study}},
journal = {Alzheimer disease and associated disorders},
year = {1997},
pmid = {9236948}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. 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
- 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.
Why it matters
This study developed and tested cognitive assessment tools for use in trials of Alzheimer's disease drugs. It concerns how to measure cognition in trials, not any treatment, cure or prevention itself.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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, so that was left out: it earned 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer disease and associated disorders) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 490 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 15.8 citations a year over 31 year(s) since 1997 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 63 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Leon J. Thal: h-index 64 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai: institution h-index 1,331 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9236948) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.