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 55 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects approximately 35 million people worldwide. Increasing evidence suggests that many risk factors for AD are modifiable. AD pathology develops over decades. Hence risk reduction interventions require very long follow-ups to show effects on AD incidence. Focussing on AD risk, instead of diagnosis, provides a more realistic target for prevention strategies. We developed a novel methodology that yields a global approach to risk assessment for AD for use in population-based settings and interventions. The methodology was used to develop a risk assessment tool that can be updated as more evidence becomes available. First, a systematic search strategy identified risk and protective factors for AD. Eleven risk factors and four protective factors for AD were identified for which odds ratios were published or could be calculated (age, sex, education, body mass index, diabetes, depression, serum cholesterol, traumatic brain injury, smoking, alcohol intake, social engagement, physical activity, cognitive activity, fish intake, and pesticide exposure). An algorithm was developed to combine the odds ratios into an AD risk score. The approach allows for interactions among risk factors which provides for their varying impact over the life-course as current evidence suggests midlife is a critical period for some risk factors. Finally, a questionnaire was developed to assess the risk and protective factors by self-report. Compared with developing risk indices on single cohort studies, this approach allows for more risk factors to be included, greater generalizeability of results, and incorporation of interactions based on findings from different stages of the lifecourse.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 55/100
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 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. 32 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 55 of 100. Total 55 of 100.32 of the 58 points we could judge = 55 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research)
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 1 / 5 2013 — 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 23319292)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 32 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total 55 / 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

Anstey, K. J., Cherbuin, N., & Herath, P. M. (2013). Development of a new method for assessing global risk of Alzheimer's disease for use in population health approaches to prevention. Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0313-2

Vancouver

Anstey KJ, Cherbuin N, Herath PM. Development of a new method for assessing global risk of Alzheimer's disease for use in population health approaches to prevention. Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research. 2013. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0313-2. PMID: 23319292.

BibTeX

@article{anstey2013-23319292,
  author  = {Anstey, K. J. and Cherbuin, N. and Herath, P. M.},
  title   = {{Development of a new method for assessing global risk of Alzheimer's disease for use in population health approaches to prevention}},
  journal = {Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11121-012-0313-2},
  pmid    = {23319292},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0313-2}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →