Home › Research › Risk factors
Dementia prevention and reserve against neurodegenerative disease
Robert Perneczky. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2019-03
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Similar to other complex disorders, the etiology of Alzheimer disease is multifactorial and characterized by an interplay of biological and environmental risk and protective factors. Potentially modifiable risk factors have emerged from epidemiological research and strategies to prevent neurodegeneration and dementia are currently being tested, including multimodal interventions aiming to reduce several risk factors at once. The concept of reserve was developed based on the observation that certain individual characteristics, such as life experiences, lifestyles, and neurobiological parameters, are associated with a higher resilience against neurodegeneration and its symptoms. Coordinated research is required to maximize the use of available human and financial resources to better understand the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of reserve and to translate research findings into effective public health interventions.
Key findings
- The concept of reserve was developed based on the observation that certain individual characteristics, such as life experiences, lifestyles, and neurobiological parameters, are associated with a higher resilience against neurodegeneration and its symptoms.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dialogues in clinical neuroscience) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 31607780) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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
Perneczky, R. (2019). Dementia prevention and reserve against neurodegenerative disease. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2019.21.1/rperneczky2
Vancouver
Perneczky R. Dementia prevention and reserve against neurodegenerative disease. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2019. doi:10.31887/dcns.2019.21.1/rperneczky2. PMID: 31607780.
BibTeX
@article{perneczky2019-31607780,
author = {Perneczky, Robert},
title = {{Dementia prevention and reserve against neurodegenerative disease}},
journal = {Dialogues in clinical neuroscience},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.31887/dcns.2019.21.1/rperneczky2},
pmid = {31607780},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2019.21.1/rperneczky2}
}