Pre-Randomization Predictors of Study Discontinuation in a Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participant discontinuation from study treatment in a clinical trial can leave a trial underpowered, produce bias in statistical analysis, and limit interpretability of study results. Retaining participants in clinical trials for the full study duration is therefore as important as participant recruitment. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aims to identify associations of pre-randomization characteristics of participants with premature discontinuation during the blinded phase of the Anti-Amyloid treatment in Asymptomatic AD (A4) Study. DESIGN: All A4 trial randomized participants were classified as having prematurely discontinued study during the blinded period of the study for any reason (dropouts) or completed the blinded phase of the study on treatment (completers). SETTING: The trial was conducted across 67 study sites in the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia through the global COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of all 1169 A4 trial randomized participants. MEASUREMENTS: Pre-randomization demographic, clinical, amyloid PET and genetic predictors of study discontinuation were evaluated using a univariate generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), with discontinuation status as the binary outcome, each predictor as a fixed effect, and site as a random effect to account for differences among study sites in the trial. Characteristics significant at p<0.10 were then included in a multivariable GLMM. RESULTS: Among randomized participants, 339 (29%) discontinued the study during the blinded period (median follow-up time in trial: 759 days). From the multivariable analysis, the two main predictors of study discontinuation were screening State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores (OR = 1.07 [95%CI = 1.02; 1.12]; p=0.002) and age (OR = 1.06 [95%CI = 1.03; 1.09]; p<0.001). Participants with a family history of dementia (OR = 0.75 [95%CI = 0.55; 1.01]; p=0.063) and APOE ε4 carriers (OR = 0.79 [95%CI = 0.6; 1.04]; p=0.094) were less likely to discontinue from the study, with the association being marginally significant. In these analyses, sex, race and ethnicity, cognitive scores and amyloid/tau PET scores were not associated with study dropout. CONCLUSIONS: In the A4 trial, older participants and those with higher levels of anxiety at baseline as measured by the STAI were more likely to discontinue while those who had a family history of dementia or were APOE ε4 carriers were less likely to drop out. These findings have direct implications for future preclinical trial design and selection processes to identify those individuals at greatest risk of dropout and provide information to the study team to develop effective selection and retention strategies in AD prevention studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".