Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Impact of Short-Term Computerized Cognitive Training on Cognition in Older Adults With and Without Genetic Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: Outcomes From the START Randomized Controlled Trial
Corbett A, Williams G, Creese B, Hampshire A, Palmer A, Brooker H, Ballard C.. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2024-04-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To establish the impact of a 3-minute computerized cognitive training program (START) on cognition in older adults with and without genetic risk of Alzheimer's disease. Design Two-arm randomized controlled trial of the START program. Setting and participants Remote online trial in adults older than 50 taking part from home. Methods The trial compared the START program with placebo in 6544 people older than 50. Primary outcome was executive function measured through Trailmaking B, with other secondary cognitive measures. Genetic risk profile and ApoE4 status were determined by Illumina Array. Results START conferred benefit to executive function, attention, memory, and a composite measure, including in people with the ApoE4 genotype. Conclusions and implications The 3-minute START task offers a means of supporting cognitive health in older adults and could be used at scale and within a precision medicine approach to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a targeted way.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Corbett, A., Williams, G., Creese, B., Hampshire, A., Palmer, A., Brooker, H., et al. (2024). Impact of Short-Term Computerized Cognitive Training on Cognition in Older Adults With and Without Genetic Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: Outcomes From the START Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.03.008
Vancouver
Corbett A, Williams G, Creese B, Hampshire A, Palmer A, Brooker H, et al. Impact of Short-Term Computerized Cognitive Training on Cognition in Older Adults With and Without Genetic Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: Outcomes From the START Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2024.03.008. PMID: 38642588.
BibTeX
@article{corbett2024-38642588,
author = {Corbett, A. and Williams, G. and Creese, B. and Hampshire, A. and Palmer, A. and Brooker, H. and Ballard, C.},
title = {{Impact of Short-Term Computerized Cognitive Training on Cognition in Older Adults With and Without Genetic Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: Outcomes From the START Randomized Controlled Trial}},
journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/j.jamda.2024.03.008},
pmid = {38642588},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.03.008}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results START conferred benefit to executive function, attention, memory, and a composite measure, including in people with the ApoE4 genotype.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants6,544
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 6,544 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 38642588) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “genetic”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “genetic”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.