Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
The Longitudinal Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS): Framework and methodology
Apostolova LG, Aisen P, Eloyan A, Fagan A, Fargo KN, Foroud T, Gatsonis C, Grinberg LT et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2021-05-21
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Patients with early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) are commonly excluded from large-scale observational and therapeutic studies due to their young age, atypical presentation, or absence of pathogenic mutations. The goals of the Longitudinal EOAD Study (LEADS) are to (1) define the clinical, imaging, and fluid biomarker characteristics of EOAD; (2) develop sensitive cognitive and biomarker measures for future clinical and research use; and (3) establish a trial-ready network. LEADS will follow 400 amyloid beta (Aβ)-positive EOAD, 200 Aβ-negative EOnonAD that meet National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia, and 100 age-matched controls. Participants will undergo clinical and cognitive assessments, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), [ 18 F]Florbetaben and [ 18 F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET), lumbar puncture, and blood draw for DNA, RNA, plasma, serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and post-mortem assessment. To develop more effective AD treatments, scientists need to understand the genetic, biological, and clinical processes involved in EOAD. LEADS will develop a public resource that will enable future planning and implementation of EOAD clinical trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Apostolova, L. G., Aisen, P., Eloyan, A., Fagan, A., Fargo, K. N., Foroud, T., et al. (2021). The Longitudinal Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS): Framework and methodology. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12350
Vancouver
Apostolova LG, Aisen P, Eloyan A, Fagan A, Fargo KN, Foroud T, et al. The Longitudinal Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS): Framework and methodology. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2021. doi:10.1002/alz.12350. PMID: 34018654.
BibTeX
@article{apostolova2021-34018654,
author = {Apostolova, L. G. and Aisen, P. and Eloyan, A. and Fagan, A. and Fargo, K. N. and Foroud, T. and Gatsonis, C. and Grinberg, L. T. and others},
title = {{The Longitudinal Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS): Framework and methodology}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/alz.12350},
pmid = {34018654},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12350}
}
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
- The goals of the Longitudinal EOAD Study (LEADS) are to (1) define the clinical, imaging, and fluid biomarker characteristics of EOAD; (2) develop sensitive cognitive and biomarker measures for future clinical and research use; and (3) establish a trial-ready network.
- LEADS will follow 400 amyloid beta (Aβ)-positive EOAD, 200 Aβ-negative EOnonAD that meet National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia, and 100 age-matched controls.
- Participants will undergo clinical and cognitive assessments, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), [ 18 F]Florbetaben and [ 18 F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET), lumbar puncture, and blood draw for DNA, RNA, plasma, serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and post-mortem assessment.
- To develop more effective AD treatments, scientists need to understand the genetic, biological, and clinical processes involved in EOAD.
- LEADS will develop a public resource that will enable future planning and implementation of EOAD clinical trials.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 34018654) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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.