Home › Research › Prevention trials
Diagnostic Utility of Multi-Domain Language Measures Across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum
Geng Z, Montembeault M, Coulombe V.. medRxiv, 2026-09-29
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Results Eight of 12 measures reached acceptable discrimination (AUC ≥ .700) for DAT vs. Semantic fluency showed the highest discrimination in each contrast, though it did not significantly outperform the NAT-S for MCI vs. In a post hoc regression, adjusting for cognitive flexibility and working memory attenuated group differences; the DAT difference was no longer significant, whereas the MCI difference remained significant.
Key findings
- Results Eight of 12 measures reached acceptable discrimination (AUC ≥ .700) for DAT vs.
- Semantic fluency showed the highest discrimination in each contrast, though it did not significantly outperform the NAT-S for MCI vs.
- In a post hoc regression, adjusting for cognitive flexibility and working memory attenuated group differences; the DAT difference was no longer significant, whereas the MCI difference remained significant.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants286
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 29 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 18 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 286 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 18 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 18 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100. |
| Total | 29 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Geng, Z., Montembeault, M., & Coulombe, V. (2026). Diagnostic Utility of Multi-Domain Language Measures Across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.28.26364143
Vancouver
Geng Z, Montembeault M, Coulombe V. Diagnostic Utility of Multi-Domain Language Measures Across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.28.26364143.
BibTeX
@article{geng2026-02693020,
author = {Geng, Z. and Montembeault, M. and Coulombe, V.},
title = {{Diagnostic Utility of Multi-Domain Language Measures Across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.28.26364143},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.28.26364143}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also in Prevention trials
86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.