alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment

Community-based Model for Dementia Risk Screening: The Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System

Yang Y, Lv C, Li H, Chen K, Li X, Chen Y, Zhang J, Wei D et al.. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2021-01-22

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 66 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives To address the condition that community-based geriatric services for the assessment and promotion of older adults' cognitive ability systemically aimed at delaying or preventing dementia is lacking in China. Design A community-based model including cognitive assessment and training, geriatric health guidance and long-term support was designed based on a prospective cohort study. Setting and participants Participants (N = 5593) were all from an ongoing cohort study, the Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) study. Methods We conducted receiver operating characteristic, stepwise logistic regression and branch-and-bound algorithm analyses to select the most effective tests from the BABRI neuropsychological test battery. Canonical discriminant analysis was conducted to extract the first canonical variable as a composite index of the tests. In addition, we developed comprehensive surveys and computerized cognitive trainings targeting every cognitive domain. Results The BABRI brain health system (BABRI-BHS) was designed to include SCREEN, ASSESS, and DIAGNOSE sessions. When distinguishing cognitively impaired older adults from cognitively healthy older adults, the canonical variable extracted from tests in the SCREEN session achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.730 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.671-0.789], with a sensitivity of 0.630 and a specificity of 0.780; in the ASSESS session, the AUC was 0.906 (95% CI 0.894-0.917), the sensitivity was 0.809, and the specificity was 0.854. A stepwise screening pathway is recommended when using the BABRI-BHS in communities to divide older adults into subtypes and to provide targeted interventions and long-term geriatric health guidance. Conclusions and implications The BABRI-BHS is an effective and efficient geriatric health care solution that is suitable for community-based dementia risk screening, providing stepwise cognitive assessments and helping older adults acquire tailored interventions and guidance conveniently.

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

APA 7th

Yang, Y., Lv, C., Li, H., Chen, K., Li, X., Chen, Y., et al. (2021). Community-based Model for Dementia Risk Screening: The Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.024

Vancouver

Yang Y, Lv C, Li H, Chen K, Li X, Chen Y, et al. Community-based Model for Dementia Risk Screening: The Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.024. PMID: 33493465.

BibTeX

@article{yang2021-33493465,
  author  = {Yang, Y. and Lv, C. and Li, H. and Chen, K. and Li, X. and Chen, Y. and Zhang, J. and Wei, D. and others},
  title   = {{Community-based Model for Dementia Risk Screening: The Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.024},
  pmid    = {33493465},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.024}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 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. 38 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 66 of 100. Total 66 of 100.38 of the 58 points we could judge = 66 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 5,593 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 33493465)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total 66 / 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.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “initiative”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “initiative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →