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 40 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

In acute ischemic stroke, critical hypoperfusion is a frequent cause of hypoxic tissue injury: As cerebral blood flow (CBF) falls below the ischemic threshold of 20 mL/100 mL/min, neurological symptoms develop and hypoxic tissue injury evolves within minutes or hours unless the oxygen supply is restored. But is ischemia the only hemodynamic source of hypoxic tissue injury? Reanalyses of the equations we traditionally use to describe the relation between CBF and tissue oxygenation suggest that capillary flow patterns are crucial for the efficient extraction of oxygen: without close capillary flow control, "functional shunts" tend to form and some of the blood's oxygen content in effect becomes inaccessible to tissue. This phenomenon raises several questions: Are there in fact two hemodynamic causes of tissue hypoxia: Limited blood supply (ischemia) and limited oxygen extraction due to capillary dysfunction? If so, how do we distinguish the two, experimentally and in patients? Do flow-metabolism coupling mechanisms adjust CBF to optimize tissue oxygenation when capillary dysfunction impairs oxygen extraction downstream? Cardiovascular risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking increase the risk of both stroke and dementia. The capillary dysfunction phenomenon therefore forces us to consider whether changes in capillary morphology or blood rheology may play a role in the etiology of some stroke subtypes and in Alzheimer's disease. Here, we discuss whether certain disease characteristics suggest capillary dysfunction rather than primary flow-limiting vascular pathology and how capillary dysfunction may be imaged and managed.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
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 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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 2 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current neurology and neuroscience reports)
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 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 25956993)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 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. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Østergaard, L., Jespersen, S. N., Engedahl, T., Gutiérrez Jiménez, E., Ashkanian, M., Hansen, M. B., et al. (2015). Capillary dysfunction: its detection and causative role in dementias and stroke. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-015-0557-x

Vancouver

Østergaard L, Jespersen SN, Engedahl T, Gutiérrez Jiménez E, Ashkanian M, Hansen MB, et al. Capillary dysfunction: its detection and causative role in dementias and stroke. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. 2015. doi:10.1007/s11910-015-0557-x. PMID: 25956993.

BibTeX

@article{ostergaard2015-25956993,
  author  = {Østergaard, L. and Jespersen, S. N. and Engedahl, T. and Gutiérrez Jiménez, E. and Ashkanian, M. and Hansen, M. B. and Eskildsen, S. and Mouridsen, K.},
  title   = {{Capillary dysfunction: its detection and causative role in dementias and stroke}},
  journal = {Current neurology and neuroscience reports},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11910-015-0557-x},
  pmid    = {25956993},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-015-0557-x}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “cerebral”

900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebral”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →