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 50 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

The diversity of cognitive deficits and neuropathological processes associated with dementias has encouraged divergence in pathophysiological explanations of disease. Here, we review an alternative framework that emphasizes convergent critical features of cognitive pathophysiology. Rather than the loss of 'memory centres' or 'language centres', or singular neurotransmitter systems, cognitive deficits are interpreted in terms of aberrant predictive coding in hierarchical neural networks. This builds on advances in normative accounts of brain function, specifically the Bayesian integration of beliefs and sensory evidence in which hierarchical predictions and prediction errors underlie memory, perception, speech and behaviour. We describe how analogous impairments in predictive coding in parallel neurocognitive systems can generate diverse clinical phenomena, including the characteristics of dementias. The review presents evidence from behavioural and neurophysiological studies of perception, language, memory and decision-making. The reformulation of cognitive deficits in terms of predictive coding has several advantages. It brings diverse clinical phenomena into a common framework; it aligns cognitive and movement disorders; and it makes specific predictions on cognitive physiology that support translational and experimental medicine studies. The insights into complex human cognitive disorders from the predictive coding framework may therefore also inform future therapeutic strategies.

Key findings

Why it matters

This review proposes that cognitive deficits in dementias can be understood as aberrant predictive coding in hierarchical neural networks. It is a theoretical framework based on behavioural and neurophysiological studies, not a treatment or prevention finding.

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 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 4 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record 4 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 48 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.48 of the 96 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a leading specialty 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, so that was left out: it earned 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology)
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 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 4 / 7 Cited 57 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 8.1 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 5.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 32 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 4 / 4 Last-listed author James Benedict Rowe: h-index 101 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of Cambridge: institution h-index 1,973 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34240109)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 48 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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).

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

Kocagoncu, E., Klimovich-Gray, A., Hughes, L. E., & Rowe, J. B. (2021). Evidence and implications of abnormal predictive coding in dementia. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab254

Vancouver

Kocagoncu E, Klimovich-Gray A, Hughes LE, Rowe JB. Evidence and implications of abnormal predictive coding in dementia. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2021. doi:10.1093/brain/awab254. PMID: 34240109.

BibTeX

@article{kocagoncu2021-34240109,
  author  = {Kocagoncu, E. and Klimovich-Gray, A. and Hughes, L. E. and Rowe, J. B.},
  title   = {{Evidence and implications of abnormal predictive coding in dementia}},
  journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1093/brain/awab254},
  pmid    = {34240109},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab254}
}

Studies this one cites

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

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →