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.

75/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP. Mexican Americans were younger and had less educational attainment than non-Hispanic whites. Overall, dementia prevalence was 11.6% (95% CI 9.2-14.0) and MCI prevalence was 21.2% (95% CI 17.5-24.8). After adjusting for age, gender, and education level, there was no significant ethnic difference in the odds of dementia or MCI. Those with ≤11 compared with ≥16 years of education had much higher dementia [OR = 4.9 (95% CI 2.2-11.1)] and MCI risk [OR = 3.5 (95% CI 1.6-7.5)]. Dementia and MCI prevalence were high in both Mexican American and non-Hispanic white populations. Mexican American persons had double the odds of mild cognitive impairment and this was attenuated when age and educational attainment were considered. Educational attainment was a potent predictor of cognitive impairment.

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

APA 7th

Morgenstern, L. B., Briceño, E. M., Mehdipanah, R., Chang, W., Lewandowski-Romps, L., Gonzales, X. F., et al. (2024). A Community-Based Study of Dementia in Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White Individuals. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230729

Vancouver

Morgenstern LB, Briceño EM, Mehdipanah R, Chang W, Lewandowski-Romps L, Gonzales XF, et al. A Community-Based Study of Dementia in Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White Individuals. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2024. doi:10.3233/jad-230729. PMID: 38143352.

BibTeX

@article{morgenstern2024-38143352,
  author  = {Morgenstern, Lewis B and Briceño, Emily M and Mehdipanah, Roshanak and Chang, Wen and Lewandowski-Romps, Lisa and Gonzales, Xavier F and Levine, Deborah A and Langa, Kenneth M and others},
  title   = {{A Community-Based Study of Dementia in Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White Individuals}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-230729},
  pmid    = {38143352},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230729}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 1,901 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “11.6%; 21.2%; OR = 4.9 (95% CI 2.2-11.1)”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP.
Mexican Americans were younger and had less educational attainment than non-Hispanic whites.
Overall, dementia prevalence was 11.6% (95% CI 9.2-14.0) and MCI prevalence was 21.2% (95% CI 17.5-24.8).
After adjusting for age, gender, and education level, there was no significant ethnic difference in the odds of dementia or MCI.
Those with ≤11 compared with ≥16 years of education had much higher dementia [OR = 4.9 (95% CI 2.2-11.1)] and MCI risk [OR = 3.5 (95% CI 1.6-7.5)].

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants1,901
Effect size11.6%; 21.2%; OR = 4.9 (95% CI 2.2-11.1)
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 75/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 75 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following 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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	1,901 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38143352)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	42 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 75 out of 100.
Total	75 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →