This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

56/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Mild cognitive impairment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. The model distinguished CU vs MCI in the validation cohort with an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.80), and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99) based on a regression model. The model included 4 discordance metrics, participant demographics (gender, age, and education), study partner demographics (gender and cohabitation), and depressive symptoms (GDS score). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 1200 dyads, measures of ECog score discordance helped distinguish CU from MCI individuals with high specificity. Participant and study partner agreement on lack of observed changes in the participant was associated with lower likelihood of MCI, highlighting the value of dyadic discordance metrics for ruling out MCI in diverse settings.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Aaronson, A., Diaz, A., Ashford, M. T., Jin, C., Tank, R., Miller, M. J., et al. (2025). Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5810

Vancouver

Aaronson A, Diaz A, Ashford MT, Jin C, Tank R, Miller MJ, et al. Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis. JAMA Network Open. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5810. PMID: 40249614.

BibTeX

@article{aaronson2025-40249614,
  author  = {Aaronson, Anna and Diaz, Adam and Ashford, Miriam Thiel and Jin, Chengshi and Tank, Rachana and Miller, Melanie Jayne and Kang, Jae Myeong and Manjavong, Manchumad and others},
  title   = {{Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis}},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5810},
  pmid    = {40249614},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5810}
}

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

ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White.
The model distinguished CU vs MCI in the validation cohort with an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.80), and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99) based on a regression model.
The model included 4 discordance metrics, participant demographics (gender, age, and education), study partner demographics (gender and cohabitation), and depressive symptoms (GDS score).
Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 1200 dyads, measures of ECog score discordance helped distinguish CU from MCI individuals with high specificity.
Participant and study partner agreement on lack of observed changes in the participant was associated with lower likelihood of MCI, highlighting the value of dyadic discordance metrics for ruling out MCI in diverse settings.

Why it matters

Measures of discordance between self-reported and informant-reported cognitive decline helped distinguish cognitively unimpaired people from those with mild cognitive impairment, with high specificity but low sensitivity. This is a cross-sectional diagnostic aid and does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants921
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 56/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 54 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 56 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Network Open)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Network Open: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in 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	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	921 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	2 / 7	Cited 7 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	2.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.4× 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	1 / 4	Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 4 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40249614)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	54 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 54 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 56 out of 100.
Total	56 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment

Also tagged “examination”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Mild cognitive impairment

See all studies in Mild cognitive impairment →