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 64 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To describe a methodology to evaluate dementia and frequency of different types of dementia and prevalence of the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Methods The CHS is a longitudinal study of cardiovascular disease among community-dwelling individuals over the age of 65. Of the 5,888 participants in the original study, 3,608 had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain in 1991, and formed the cohort for the dementia study. The CHS included yearly measures of cognitive function and, from 1998 to 2000, participants were evaluated for dementia by detailed neurological, and neuropsychological examinations. The possible cases of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were adjudicated by a review committee of neurologists and psychiatrists. Results There were 480 cases of (13.3%) incident dementia in the total sample, 227 (6.3%) prevalent dementia, 577 (16.0%) MCI, and 2,318 (64.4%) normal. The adjudication committee classified 69% of the incident dementia as Alzheimer's disease (AD), 11% as vascular dementia (VaD), 16% as both, and 4% as other types. There was a substantial agreement between pre- and postMRI diagnosis of types of dementia. The frequency of dementia within the CHS cohort which survived to the end of the study in 1998-1999, was 13.5% for white men, 14.5% for white women, 22.2% for black men and 23.4% for black women. Conclusion The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers.

Key findings

Why it matters

In 3,608 adults over 65 from the Cardiovascular Health Study who had a brain MRI in 1991, a panel of neurologists and psychiatrists reviewed detailed exams from 1998–2000 and classified 480 people (13.3%) as having developed dementia, 227 (6.3%) as already having dementia and 577 (16.0%) as having mild cognitive impairment; 69% of the new dementia cases were judged Alzheimer's disease, 11% vascular dementia and 16% both. Among people who survived to the end of the study, dementia was more frequent in Black men (22.2%) and women (23.4%) than in white men (13.5%) and women (14.5%), though the paper reports these as plain frequencies and does not explain the difference. It describes how dementia was identified and counted in this cohort, and does not test any treatment or prevention.

Study details

How this study scored 64/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 5 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 4 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 3 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 61 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 64 of 100. Total 64 of 100.61 of the 96 points we could judge = 64 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 61 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroepidemiology)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Neuroepidemiology: journal h-index 125 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same 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 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 3 / 4 5,888 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 5 / 7 Cited 237 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 9.5 citations a year over 25 year(s) since 2003
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 9.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 4 / 6 Cited by 42 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 21 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Norman Beauchamp holds only 4 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 3 / 3 University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12566948)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 61 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 61 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total 64 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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

Lopez, O. L., Kuller, L. H., Fitzpatrick, A., Ives, D., Becker, J. T., & Beauchamp, N. (2003). Evaluation of dementia in the cardiovascular health cognition study. Neuroepidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000067110

Vancouver

Lopez OL, Kuller LH, Fitzpatrick A, Ives D, Becker JT, Beauchamp N. Evaluation of dementia in the cardiovascular health cognition study. Neuroepidemiology. 2003. doi:10.1159/000067110. PMID: 12566948.

BibTeX

@article{lopez2003-12566948,
  author  = {Lopez, O. L. and Kuller, L. H. and Fitzpatrick, A. and Ives, D. and Becker, J. T. and Beauchamp, N.},
  title   = {{Evaluation of dementia in the cardiovascular health cognition study}},
  journal = {Neuroepidemiology},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1159/000067110},
  pmid    = {12566948},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000067110}
}

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

42 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Disparities

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →