Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Given the uncertain relationship between objective and subjective memory complaints (SMC), we conducted a study of cognitive function in older people with memory complaints in a large population-based elderly Spanish cohort (NEDICES). A total of 1,073 subjects with SMC and 1,073 matched controls free from dementia underwent a neuropsychological assessment, including tests of global cognitive performance, frontal executive function, verbal fluency, and memory. SMC were associated with a number of specific objective cognitive deficits including poor verbal fluency, and poor immediate and delayed recall. However, there was a limited association with global cognitive impairment despite a strong influence upon Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire based daily function. In the full sample the strongest predictors of SMC were poor psychological well-being, depressive symptoms (including those taking antidepressants) and hearing impairment. Moderate predictors were age and gender. If individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were removed, then the strongest predictors were poor psychological well-being, depressive symptoms, hearing impairment, illiteracy, age, and gender. For those with MCI alone, the only significant predictor of memory complaints was poor psychological well-being. Predictors of SMC in those with depressive symptoms included poor psychological well-being and hearing impairment. With depressive symptoms excluded the strongest predictors were poor psychological well-being, hearing impairment, illiteracy, and gender. In this population-based sample, individuals with SMC had evidence of impairments on specific neuropsychological testing which might not be apparent on global measures. Predictors of SMC may differ in those with versus without MCI and those with versus without depressive symptoms.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 29 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.29 of the 58 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 1 / 5 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,073 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 — / 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 20847410)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 29 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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.

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

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Benito-León, J., Mitchell, A. J., Vega, S., & Bermejo-Pareja, F. (2010). A population-based study of cognitive function in older people with subjective memory complaints. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2010-100972

Vancouver

Benito-León J, Mitchell AJ, Vega S, Bermejo-Pareja F. A population-based study of cognitive function in older people with subjective memory complaints. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2010. doi:10.3233/jad-2010-100972. PMID: 20847410.

BibTeX

@article{benitoleon2010-20847410,
  author  = {Benito-León, J. and Mitchell, A. J. and Vega, S. and Bermejo-Pareja, F.},
  title   = {{A population-based study of cognitive function in older people with subjective memory complaints}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2010},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-2010-100972},
  pmid    = {20847410},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2010-100972}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “reserve”

208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →