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.

60/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

Key neuropathological changes associated with late-onset dementia are not fully understood. Population-based longitudinal studies offer an opportunity to step back and examine which pathological indices best link to clinical state. CC75C is a longitudinal study of the population aged 75 and over at baseline in Cambridge, UK. We report on the first 213 participants coming to autopsy with sufficient information for an end of life dementia diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis was ascertained by examining retrospective informant interviews, survey responses, and death certificates according to DSM-IV criteria. The neuropathological protocol was based on the Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD). Clinical dementia was present in 113 participants (53%): 67% with Alzheimer's disease, 4% vascular dementia, 22% mixed dementia, and 1% dementia with Lewy bodies. As Alzheimer-type pathology was common, the mutually blinded clinical and neuropathological diagnoses were not strongly related. Multivariable analysis identified associations between dementia during life and entorhinal cortex neuritic plaques, hippocampal diffuse plaques, neocortical neurofibrillary tangles, white matter pallor, Lewy bodies, and hippocampal atrophy. These results were consistent in those with clinical Alzheimer's disease. Vascular pathologies, especially microinfarcts, were more common in those with clinical diagnoses including vascular dementia. Alzheimer-type and cerebrovascular pathology are both common in the very old. A greater burden of these pathologies, Lewy bodies, and hippocampal atrophy, are associated with a higher risk of, but do not define, clinical dementia in old age.

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

APA 7th

Brayne, C., Richardson, K., Matthews, F. E., Fleming, J., Hunter, S., Xuereb, J. H., et al. (2009). Neuropathological correlates of dementia in over-80-year-old brain donors from the population-based Cambridge city over-75s cohort (CC75C) study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2009-1182

Vancouver

Brayne C, Richardson K, Matthews FE, Fleming J, Hunter S, Xuereb JH, et al. Neuropathological correlates of dementia in over-80-year-old brain donors from the population-based Cambridge city over-75s cohort (CC75C) study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2009. doi:10.3233/jad-2009-1182. PMID: 19661624.

BibTeX

@article{brayne2009-19661624,
  author  = {Brayne, C. and Richardson, K. and Matthews, F. E. and Fleming, J. and Hunter, S. and Xuereb, J. H. and Paykel, E. and Mukaetova-Ladinska, E. B. and others},
  title   = {{Neuropathological correlates of dementia in over-80-year-old brain donors from the population-based Cambridge city over-75s cohort (CC75C) study}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-2009-1182},
  pmid    = {19661624},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2009-1182}
}

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 213 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

Key neuropathological changes associated with late-onset dementia are not fully understood.
These results were consistent in those with clinical Alzheimer's disease.
A greater burden of these pathologies, Lewy bodies, and hippocampal atrophy, are associated with a higher risk of, but do not define, clinical dementia in old age.

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants213
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 60/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same 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 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
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	2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	213 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 19661624)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	35 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100.
Total	60 / 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 End-of-life care from nearby years

Also in End-of-life care

116 studies in the library are filed under End-of-life care with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The End-of-life care hub.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →