Home › Research › Caregiving
Dyadic self- and informant-reported cognitive concern and subsequent MCI/AD diagnosis in ADNI: an exploratory prognostic modelling study
CHENG WKW.. Research Square, 2026-09-04
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
M2 C-index 0.682, M3 0.692, M4 0.687. Adding the dyadic mean yielded an estimated ΔC of 0.010 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.024). The gap did not improve discrimination beyond the dyadic mean. In this internally validated ADNI cohort, adding a baseline dyadic mean ECog score to a conventional-predictor model was associated with only a small and statistically uncertain increase in out-of-fold discrimination (ΔC = 0.010, 95% CI -0.003 to 0.024); the self–informant gap provided no additional discrimination. The small and uncertain increment, together with high dyadic-report missingness and cohort-specific measurement processes, limits generalisability and does not support clinical deployment without external validation.
Key findings
- Adding the dyadic mean yielded an estimated ΔC of 0.010 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.024).
- The gap did not improve discrimination beyond the dyadic mean.
- In this internally validated ADNI cohort, adding a baseline dyadic mean ECog score to a conventional-predictor model was associated with only a small and statistically uncertain increase in out-of-fold discrimination (ΔC = 0.010, 95% CI -0.003 to 0.024); the self–informant gap provided no additional discrimination.
- The small and uncertain increment, together with high dyadic-report missingness and cohort-specific measurement processes, limits generalisability and does not support clinical deployment without external validation.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Participants1,762
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 34 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 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” 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 | 3 / 4 | 1,762 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 | 21 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100. |
| Total | 34 / 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
CHENG, W. K. W. (2026). Dyadic self- and informant-reported cognitive concern and subsequent MCI/AD diagnosis in ADNI: an exploratory prognostic modelling study. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10884877/v1
Vancouver
CHENG WKW. Dyadic self- and informant-reported cognitive concern and subsequent MCI/AD diagnosis in ADNI: an exploratory prognostic modelling study. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10884877/v1.
BibTeX
@article{cheng2026-6910e9a6,
author = {CHENG, W. K. W.},
title = {{Dyadic self- and informant-reported cognitive concern and subsequent MCI/AD diagnosis in ADNI: an exploratory prognostic modelling study}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10884877/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10884877/v1}
}
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.