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.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Long-term cohort studies

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

This article focuses on the effects of operational differences in case ascertainment on estimates of prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer type. Experience and insights are discussed by investigators from the Framingham Heart Study, the East Boston Senior Health Project, the Chicago Health and Aging Project, the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. There is a general consensus that the single most important factor determining prevalence estimates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the severity of cognitive impairment used as a threshold to define cases.

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

APA 7th

Seshadri, S., Beiser, A., Au, R., Wolf, P. A., Evans, D. A., Wilson, R. S., et al. (2011). Operationalizing diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and other age-related cognitive impairment-Part 2. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2010.12.002

Vancouver

Seshadri S, Beiser A, Au R, Wolf PA, Evans DA, Wilson RS, et al. Operationalizing diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and other age-related cognitive impairment-Part 2. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2010.12.002. PMID: 21255742.

BibTeX

@article{seshadri2011-21255742,
  author  = {Seshadri, S. and Beiser, A. and Au, R. and Wolf, P. A. and Evans, D. A. and Wilson, R. S. and Petersen, R. C. and Knopman, D. S. and others},
  title   = {{Operationalizing diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and other age-related cognitive impairment-Part 2}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jalz.2010.12.002},
  pmid    = {21255742},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2010.12.002}
}

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.

Key findings

Experience and insights are discussed by investigators from the Framingham Heart Study, the East Boston Senior Health Project, the Chicago Health and Aging Project, the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study.
There is a general consensus that the single most important factor determining prevalence estimates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the severity of cognitive impairment used as a threshold to define cases.
Studies that require a level of cognitive impairment in which persons are unable to provide self-care will have much lower estimates than the studies aimed at identifying persons in the earliest stages of AD.
There are limited autopsy data from the aforementioned epidemiological studies to address accuracy in the diagnosis of etiological subtype, namely the specification of AD alone or in combination with other types of pathology.

Why it matters

This article discusses how differences in diagnostic criteria affect estimates of Alzheimer's disease prevalence and incidence. It does not test a treatment, cure, or prevention, and it highlights that how cases are defined strongly influences numbers.

Study details

Study designcohort study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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	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)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	4 / 7	Cited 97 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	5.7 citations a year over 17 year(s) since 2011
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 7.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 17 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 12 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Helena Chang Chui: h-index 93 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Michigan: institution h-index 2,240 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 11 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21255742)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	55 / 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).

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. Showing 12 of 48.

Later studies that cite this one

17 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Long-term cohort studies

Also in Long-term cohort studies

54 studies in the library are filed under Long-term cohort studies with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Long-term cohort studies hub.

Similar studies

More on Long-term cohort studies

See all studies in Long-term cohort studies →