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 71 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Sleep is a potential early, modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia. Impaired slow wave sleep (SWS) is pronounced in individuals with cognitive impairment (CI). Cognitive decline and impairments of SWS are bi-directionally linked in a vicious cycle. SWS can be enhanced non-invasively using phase-locked acoustic stimulation (PLAS), potentially breaking this vicious cycle. Eighteen healthy older adults (HC, age mean±sd , 68.3 ± 5.1) and 16 older adults (age mean±sd , 71.9 ± 3.9) with CI (Montreal Cognitive Assessment ≤ 25) underwent one baseline (sham-PLAS) night and three consecutive stimulation nights (real-PLAS). EEG responses and blood-plasma amyloid beta Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio were measured pre- and post-intervention, as was episodic memory. The latter was again evaluated 1 week and 3 months after the intervention. In both groups, PLAS induced a significant electrophysiological response in both voltage- and time-frequency analyses, and memory performance improved in association with the magnitude of this response. In the CI group, both electrophysiological and associated memory effects were delayed compared to the healthy group. After 3 intervention nights, electrophysiological response to PLAS was no longer different between CI and HC groups. Only in the CI sample, stronger electrophysiological responses were significantly associated with improving post-intervention Aβ42/Aβ40 ratios. PLAS seems to improve SWS electrophysiology, memory, and amyloid dynamics in older adults with CI. However, effects on memory require more time to unfold compared to healthy older adults. This indicates that PLAS may become a potential tool to ameliorate cognitive decline, but longer interventions are necessary to compensate for declining brain integrity. This study was pre-registered (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04277104).

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

APA 7th

Zeller, C. J., Wunderlin, M., Wicki, K., Teunissen, C. E., Nissen, C., Züst, M. A., et al. (2024). Multi-night acoustic stimulation is associated with better sleep, amyloid dynamics, and memory in older adults with cognitive impairment. GeroScience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01195-z

Vancouver

Zeller CJ, Wunderlin M, Wicki K, Teunissen CE, Nissen C, Züst MA, et al. Multi-night acoustic stimulation is associated with better sleep, amyloid dynamics, and memory in older adults with cognitive impairment. GeroScience. 2024. doi:10.1007/s11357-024-01195-z. PMID: 38744792.

BibTeX

@article{zeller2024-38744792,
  author  = {Zeller, C. J. and Wunderlin, M. and Wicki, K. and Teunissen, C. E. and Nissen, C. and Züst, M. A. and Klöppel, S.},
  title   = {{Multi-night acoustic stimulation is associated with better sleep, amyloid dynamics, and memory in older adults with cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {GeroScience},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11357-024-01195-z},
  pmid    = {38744792},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01195-z}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (GeroScience)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 38744792)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 41 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total 71 / 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 Biomarkers

Also tagged “amyloid-dynamics”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-dynamics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →