Home › Research › Risk factors
Beyond Usual Pace: Quick Walking Speed and Brain Health Outcomes in the Framingham Heart Study
Thomson A, Lu S, Young VM, Katragadda HV, Kolo F, Hromas G, Gireud-Goss M, Jacob ME et al.. medRxiv, 2026-10-15
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
We estimated associations per SD slower walking or smaller adaptability using linear, logistic, and Cox regression (10-year follow-up), overall and in women and men. RESULTS Slower QWS and UWS were each associated with worse executive function, higher odds of high depressive symptoms (QWS OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.45; UWS OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.46), and greater hazard of incident stroke (QWS HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.64; UWS HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.65). Lower gait adaptability was associated with worse executive function overall and in women and men, and with incident dementia in women (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76), but not with depressive symptoms or stroke. No gait measure was associated with delayed recall. CONCLUSION Slower QWS was associated with incident dementia; UWS was not. Key Points Quick-pace walking, which adds one instruction to the usual-pace test, was associated with higher 10-year dementia risk, whereas the usual-pace estimate was smaller and not statistically significant. The margin between quick and usual pace, which reflects the capacity to accelerate on demand, was associated with executive function and, in women, with incident dementia, but not with stroke or depressive symptoms, unlike either pace on its own. • Why does this paper matter?
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Thomson, A., Lu, S., Young, V. M., Katragadda, H. V., Kolo, F., Hromas, G., et al. (2026). Beyond Usual Pace: Quick Walking Speed and Brain Health Outcomes in the Framingham Heart Study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.13.26365066
Vancouver
Thomson A, Lu S, Young VM, Katragadda HV, Kolo F, Hromas G, et al. Beyond Usual Pace: Quick Walking Speed and Brain Health Outcomes in the Framingham Heart Study. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.10.13.26365066.
BibTeX
@article{thomson2026-edfdc864,
author = {Thomson, A. and Lu, S. and Young, V. M. and Katragadda, H. V. and Kolo, F. and Hromas, G. and Gireud-Goss, M. and Jacob, M. E. and others},
title = {{Beyond Usual Pace: Quick Walking Speed and Brain Health Outcomes in the Framingham Heart Study}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.13.26365066},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.13.26365066}
}
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.
Key findings
- We estimated associations per SD slower walking or smaller adaptability using linear, logistic, and Cox regression (10-year follow-up), overall and in women and men.
- RESULTS Slower QWS and UWS were each associated with worse executive function, higher odds of high depressive symptoms (QWS OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.45; UWS OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.46), and greater hazard of incident stroke (QWS HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.64; UWS HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.65).
- Lower gait adaptability was associated with worse executive function overall and in women and men, and with incident dementia in women (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76), but not with depressive symptoms or stroke.
- No gait measure was associated with delayed recall.
- CONCLUSION Slower QWS was associated with incident dementia; UWS was not.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants2,308
- Effect sizeOR 1.24; OR 1.26; HR 1.30
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 45 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,308 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) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.