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.

67/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death. Overall mean age was 74.2 years, range of means by site 71.3-76.3 years; 62.4% were female, range 53.4%-67.3%. Conclusions In this study we observed a high prevalence of DICs, particularly in older age groups. Our findings provide some support for the strategy of optimising intrinsic capacity in pursuit of healthy ageing.

Key findings

We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death.
Overall mean age was 74.2 years, range of means by site 71.3-76.3 years; 62.4% were female, range 53.4%-67.3%.
Conclusions In this study we observed a high prevalence of DICs, particularly in older age groups.
Our findings provide some support for the strategy of optimising intrinsic capacity in pursuit of healthy ageing.

Why it matters

This study found a high prevalence of intrinsic capacity deficits, especially in older age groups, and linked these deficits to higher risks of dependence and death. The findings offer some support for the strategy of optimising intrinsic capacity in pursuit of healthy ageing, but they do not test a treatment or cure for Alzheimer's disease.

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

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants17,031
Effect size62.4%; 53.4%; 67.3%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 67/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS medicine)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	PLoS Medicine: journal h-index 350 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following 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	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	17,031 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 143 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	20.4 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 106 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Adolfo Valhuerdi: h-index 8 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 10 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34520466)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	67 / 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. 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.

APA 7th

Prince, M. J., Acosta, D., Guerra, M., Huang, Y., Jacob, K. S., Jimenez-Velazquez, I. Z., et al. (2021). Intrinsic capacity and its associations with incident dependence and mortality in 10/66 Dementia Research Group studies in Latin America, India, and China: A population-based cohort study. PLoS medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003097

Vancouver

Prince MJ, Acosta D, Guerra M, Huang Y, Jacob KS, Jimenez-Velazquez IZ, et al. Intrinsic capacity and its associations with incident dependence and mortality in 10/66 Dementia Research Group studies in Latin America, India, and China: A population-based cohort study. PLoS medicine. 2021. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003097. PMID: 34520466.

BibTeX

@article{prince2021-34520466,
  author  = {Prince, M. J. and Acosta, D. and Guerra, M. and Huang, Y. and Jacob, K. S. and Jimenez-Velazquez, I. Z. and Jotheeswaran, A. T. and Llibre Rodriguez, J. J. and others},
  title   = {{Intrinsic capacity and its associations with incident dependence and mortality in 10/66 Dementia Research Group studies in Latin America, India, and China: A population-based cohort study}},
  journal = {PLoS medicine},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1003097},
  pmid    = {34520466},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003097}
}

Studies this one cites

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

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →