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.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Objective The Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer's disease (KBASE) aimed to recruit 650 individuals, aged from 20 to 90 years, to search for new biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to investigate how multi-faceted lifetime experiences and bodily changes contribute to the brain changes or brain pathologies related to the AD process. Methods All participants received comprehensive clinical and neuropsychological evaluations, multi-modal brain imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance angiography, [ 11 C]Pittsburgh compound B-positron emission tomography (PET), and [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, blood and genetic marker analyses at baseline, and a subset of participants underwent actigraph monitoring and completed a sleep diary. Participants are to be followed annually with clinical and neuropsychological assessments, and biannually with the full KBASE assessment, including neuroimaging and laboratory tests. Results As of March 2017, in total, 758 individuals had volunteered for this study. Among them, in total, 591 participants-291 cognitively normal (CN) old-aged individuals, 74 CN young- and middle-aged individuals, 139 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 87 individuals with AD dementia (ADD)-were enrolled at baseline, after excluding 162 individuals. A subset of participants (n=275) underwent actigraph monitoring. Conclusion The KBASE cohort is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study that recruited participants with a wide age range and a wide distribution of cognitive status (CN, MCI, and ADD) and it has several strengths in its design and methodologies. Details of the recruitment, study methodology, and baseline sample characteristics are described in this paper.

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

APA 7th

Byun, M. S., Yi, D., Lee, J. H., Choe, Y. M., Sohn, B. K., Lee, J. Y., et al. (2017). Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer's Disease: Methodology and Baseline Sample Characteristics. Psychiatry investigation. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2017.14.6.851

Vancouver

Byun MS, Yi D, Lee JH, Choe YM, Sohn BK, Lee JY, et al. Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer's Disease: Methodology and Baseline Sample Characteristics. Psychiatry investigation. 2017. doi:10.4306/pi.2017.14.6.851. PMID: 29209391.

BibTeX

@article{byun2017-29209391,
  author  = {Byun, M. S. and Yi, D. and Lee, J. H. and Choe, Y. M. and Sohn, B. K. and Lee, J. Y. and Choi, H. J. and Baek, H. and others},
  title   = {{Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer's Disease: Methodology and Baseline Sample Characteristics}},
  journal = {Psychiatry investigation},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.4306/pi.2017.14.6.851},
  pmid    = {29209391},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2017.14.6.851}
}

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 lists 275 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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

Results As of March 2017, in total, 758 individuals had volunteered for this study.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants275
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychiatry investigation)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	275 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29209391)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	38 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also tagged “characteristics”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “characteristics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →