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.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Insulin resistance (IR) is the main pathological condition underlying vascular disorders, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are well established risk factors for cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease (AD). Hippocampal atrophy has been associated with cognitive decline, but little is known about the influence of IR on hippocampus integrity in non-diabetic, cognitively intact individuals. Herein, 50 women ages 50-65, current users of hormone therapy, underwent magnetic resonance imaging, cognitive testing, and homeostatic assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), as part of a longitudinal study examining brain structure and function in postmenopausal women at risk for AD. Results demonstrated a significant negative relationship between HOMA-IR and right and total hippocampal volume, overall cognitive performance, and selective tests of verbal and non-verbal memory. The main effect of HOMA-IR on brain structure and cognition was not altered by the presence of APOE-ε4 allele or by reproductive history, such as duration of endogenous and exogenous estrogen exposure. These results suggest that IR in middle-aged individuals at risk for AD may be biomarker for dementia risk.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study. In 50 non-diabetic, cognitively intact women aged 50 to 65, greater insulin resistance was linked to smaller right and total hippocampal volume and worse memory performance, regardless of APOE epsilon4 status. This suggests insulin resistance may be a marker of dementia risk but does not test any treatment or prevention.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Rasgon, N. L., Kenna, H. A., Wroolie, T. E., Kelley, R., Silverman, D., Brooks, J., et al. (2011). Insulin resistance and hippocampal volume in women at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.005

Vancouver

Rasgon NL, Kenna HA, Wroolie TE, Kelley R, Silverman D, Brooks J, et al. Insulin resistance and hippocampal volume in women at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.005. PMID: 20031276.

BibTeX

@article{rasgon2011-20031276,
  author  = {Rasgon, N. L. and Kenna, H. A. and Wroolie, T. E. and Kelley, R. and Silverman, D. and Brooks, J. and Williams, K. E. and Powers, B. N. and others},
  title   = {{Insulin resistance and hippocampal volume in women at risk for Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.005},
  pmid    = {20031276},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.005}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Hippocampal atrophy has been associated with cognitive decline, but little is known about the influence of IR on hippocampus integrity in non-diabetic, cognitively intact individuals.
Results demonstrated a significant negative relationship between HOMA-IR and right and total hippocampal volume, overall cognitive performance, and selective tests of verbal and non-verbal memory.
These results suggest that IR in middle-aged individuals at risk for AD may be biomarker for dementia risk.

Why it matters

In 50 non-diabetic, cognitively intact women aged 50 to 65, greater insulin resistance was linked to smaller right and total hippocampal volume and worse memory performance, regardless of APOE epsilon4 status. This suggests insulin resistance may be a marker of dementia risk but does not test any treatment or prevention.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 50/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	2011 — 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2009, the record says 2011; OpenAlex values not used) — 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	2 / 6	Cited by 6 other studies in this library
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20031276)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	32 / 64	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 64 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 — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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.

Later studies that cite this one

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

Related studies in Genetics from nearby years

Also tagged “disorder”

492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →