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 82 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

As the literature related to cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is only emerging, a clear consensus on the relationship among CR proxies, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. The primary aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship among sociobehavioral proxies of CR, brain status, and clinical performance in individuals with various types of FTD. Additionally, characteristics of patient population, sociobehavioral proxies, disease severity tools, and brain status measures used were identified. The systematic review was conducted using comprehensive search terms in Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were for studies to include at least one CR and one brain status measure for individuals with FTD, be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and be published in English. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess study quality and bias risk. A total of 237 titles and abstracts were screened, with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Together, these studies report 1,423 participants with FTD. Based on the included studies, partial support was demonstrated for CR in individuals with FTD when education, occupation, and leisure were utilized as CR proxies. The variability in results among studies could be related to the different tools used to measure CR, brain status, and disease severity. This review provides recommendations for future studies: incorporating longitudinal designs, in depth neuropsychological testing, consistent disease duration measure, and transparant statistical output reporting.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 82/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 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 left out, no data. 46 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 82 of 100. Total 82 of 100.46 of the 56 points we could judge = 82 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 82 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,423 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 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 39420515)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 46 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 82 out of 100.
Total 82 / 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

Grebe, L. A., Vonk, J. M. J., Galletta, E. E., & Goral, M. (2024). Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2410207

Vancouver

Grebe LA, Vonk JMJ, Galletta EE, Goral M. Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. 2024. doi:10.1080/13803395.2024.2410207. PMID: 39420515.

BibTeX

@article{grebe2024-39420515,
  author  = {Grebe, Lauren A and Vonk, Jet M J and Galletta, Elizabeth E and Goral, Mira},
  title   = {{Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review}},
  journal = {Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1080/13803395.2024.2410207},
  pmid    = {39420515},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2410207}
}

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 →