Premium
O3‐13‐01: Choice of endpoints, meta‐analyses and clinical judgment for treatments of Alzheimer's disease
Author(s) -
Riepe Matthias W.,
Wilkinson David,
Förstl Hans,
Brieden Andreas
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.05.1212
Subject(s) - cognition , disease , meta analysis , psychology , clinical psychology , alzheimer's disease , dementia , medicine , psychiatry
ments were negative and quantitative assessments were positive in 14 subjects. The visual assessments were positive and quantitative assessments were negative in 12 subjects. Conclusions: In this population, 26 of 96 subjects had discordant reads between the two methods. This may be a result of averaging regions in the quantitative assessment while only 1 region was required to be positive for the visual assessment. The quantitative threshold could be modified or visual assessment scores of 2 could be also considered positive but these alternative approaches would predominantly shift the balance between false positives and false negatives without substantially changing the discordant pairs.