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 53 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Adults over age 65 represent the fastest growing population in the US. Decline in cognitive abilities is a hallmark of advanced age and is associated with loss of independence and dementia risk. There is a pressing need to develop effective interventions for slowing or reversing the cognitive aging process. While certain forms of cognitive training have shown promise in this area, effects only sometimes transfer to neuropsychological tests within or outside the trained domain. This paper describes a NIA-funded Phase III adaptive multisite randomized clinical trial, examining whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of frontal cortices enhances neurocognitive outcomes achieved from cognitive training in older adults experiencing age-related cognitive decline: the Augmenting Cognitive Training in Older Adults study (ACT). Methods ACT will enroll 360 participants aged 65 to 89 with age-related cognitive decline, but not dementia. Participants will undergo cognitive training intervention or education training-control combined with tDCS or sham tDCS control. Cognitive training employs a suite of eight adaptive training tasks focused on attention/speed of processing and working memory from Posit Science BrainHQ. Training control involves exposure to educational nature/history videos and related content questions of the same interval/duration as the cognitive training. Participants are assessed at baseline, after training (12weeks), and 12-month follow-up on our primary outcome measure, NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Composite Score, as well as a comprehensive neurocognitive, functional, clinical and multimodal neuroimaging battery. Significance The findings from this study have the potential to significantly enhance efforts to ameliorate cognitive aging and slow dementia.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
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 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 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. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Contemporary clinical trials)
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 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 360 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 29313802)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 31 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 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

Woods, A. J., Cohen, R., Marsiske, M., Alexander, G. E., Czaja, S. J., & Wu, S. (2018). Augmenting cognitive training in older adults (The ACT Study): Design and Methods of a Phase III tDCS and cognitive training trial. Contemporary clinical trials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.017

Vancouver

Woods AJ, Cohen R, Marsiske M, Alexander GE, Czaja SJ, Wu S. Augmenting cognitive training in older adults (The ACT Study): Design and Methods of a Phase III tDCS and cognitive training trial. Contemporary clinical trials. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.017. PMID: 29313802.

BibTeX

@article{woods2018-29313802,
  author  = {Woods, A. J. and Cohen, R. and Marsiske, M. and Alexander, G. E. and Czaja, S. J. and Wu, S.},
  title   = {{Augmenting cognitive training in older adults (The ACT Study): Design and Methods of a Phase III tDCS and cognitive training trial}},
  journal = {Contemporary clinical trials},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.017},
  pmid    = {29313802},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.017}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →