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.

59/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Frailty, a critical intermediate status of the aging process that is at increased risk for negative health-related events, includes physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains or phenotypes. Cognitive frailty is a condition recently defined by operationalized criteria describing coexisting physical frailty and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), with two proposed subtypes: potentially reversible cognitive frailty (physical frailty/MCI) and reversible cognitive frailty (physical frailty/pre-MCI subjective cognitive decline). In the present article, we reviewed the framework for the definition, different models, and the current epidemiology of cognitive frailty, also describing neurobiological mechanisms, and exploring the possible prevention of the cognitive frailty progression. Several studies suggested a relevant heterogeneity with prevalence estimates ranging 1.0-22.0% (10.7-22.0% in clinical-based settings and 1.0-4.4% in population-based settings). Cross-sectional and longitudinal population-based studies showed that different cognitive frailty models may be associated with increased risk of functional disability, worsened quality of life, hospitalization, mortality, incidence of dementia, vascular dementia, and neurocognitive disorders. The operationalization of clinical constructs based on cognitive impairment related to physical causes (physical frailty, motor function decline, or other physical factors) appears to be interesting for dementia secondary prevention given the increased risk for progression to dementia of these clinical entities. Multidomain interventions have the potential to be effective in preventing cognitive frailty. In the near future, we need to establish more reliable clinical and research criteria, using different operational definitions for frailty and cognitive impairment, and useful clinical, biological, and imaging markers to implement intervention programs targeted to improve frailty, so preventing also late-life cognitive disorders.

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

APA 7th

Panza, F., Lozupone, M., Solfrizzi, V., Sardone, R., Dibello, V., Di Lena, L., et al. (2018). Different Cognitive Frailty Models and Health- and Cognitive-related Outcomes in Older Age: From Epidemiology to Prevention. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170963

Vancouver

Panza F, Lozupone M, Solfrizzi V, Sardone R, Dibello V, Di Lena L, et al. Different Cognitive Frailty Models and Health- and Cognitive-related Outcomes in Older Age: From Epidemiology to Prevention. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2018. doi:10.3233/jad-170963. PMID: 29562543.

BibTeX

@article{panza2018-29562543,
  author  = {Panza, F. and Lozupone, M. and Solfrizzi, V. and Sardone, R. and Dibello, V. and Di Lena, L. and D'Urso, F. and Stallone, R. and others},
  title   = {{Different Cognitive Frailty Models and Health- and Cognitive-related Outcomes in Older Age: From Epidemiology to Prevention}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-170963},
  pmid    = {29562543},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170963}
}

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

Frailty, a critical intermediate status of the aging process that is at increased risk for negative health-related events, includes physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains or phenotypes.
Cross-sectional and longitudinal population-based studies showed that different cognitive frailty models may be associated with increased risk of functional disability, worsened quality of life, hospitalization, mortality, incidence of dementia, vascular dementia, and neurocognitive disorders.
The operationalization of clinical constructs based on cognitive impairment related to physical causes (physical frailty, motor function decline, or other physical factors) appears to be interesting for dementia secondary prevention given the increased risk for progression to dementia of these clinical entities.

Why it matters

This review describes cognitive frailty as coexisting physical frailty and mild cognitive impairment, with prevalence estimates ranging from 1.0 to 22.0% depending on setting. It reports that different cognitive frailty models may be associated with increased risk of outcomes including incidence of dementia and vascular dementia.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Effect size22.0%; 4.4%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Journal of Alzheimer s Disease: journal h-index 218 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in 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	2 / 5	2018 — 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	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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	6 / 7	Cited 340 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	34.0 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 13.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 116 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Giancarlo Logroscino: h-index 126 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore: institution h-index 606 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29562543)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	59 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 18.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Prevention and risk

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →