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.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

NHB Hispanic, and NHW participants prevalences were APOE ε4 (32.2%, 27.4%, 17.6%), diabetes (26.1%, 35.0%, 13.9%), hypertension (79.0%, 63.6%, 58.2%), obesity (56.8%, 50.3%, 38.5%), and tobacco dependence (12.9%, 7.5%, 3.9%). In adjusted models, NHB and Hispanic ethnicity, APOE ε4, diabetes, hypertension, and tobacco dependence each independently predicted lower performance across all four cognitive domains (adjusted p < .001), whereas obesity showed domain-specific positive associations. No race × risk-factor interactions remained significant after correction. In intervention models, hypothetically eliminating diabetes and hypertension yielded the largest predicted improvements, especially in executive function and language, with the greatest gains projected among NHB and Hispanic racial ethnic group. Cardiometabolic health markedly contributes to racial ethnic differences in cognitive aging beyond APOE ε4 effects. Population-level interventions targeting diabetes and hypertension could narrow NHB and Hispanic cognitive deficits, informing precision public-health strategies for dementia prevention.

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

APA 7th

Hayes, C. A., Abdullah, L. B., Gills, J. L., & Odden, M. C. (2025). Population intervention models of racial ethnic disparities in cognitive outcomes from cardiometabolic risk factors – HABS-HD. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01866-9

Vancouver

Hayes CA, Abdullah LB, Gills JL, Odden MC. Population intervention models of racial ethnic disparities in cognitive outcomes from cardiometabolic risk factors – HABS-HD. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy. 2025. doi:10.1186/s13195-025-01866-9. PMID: 41035086.

BibTeX

@article{hayes2025-41035086,
  author  = {Hayes, Cellas A. and Abdullah, Lubnaa Badriyyah and Gills, Joshua L. and Odden, Michelle C.},
  title   = {{Population intervention models of racial ethnic disparities in cognitive outcomes from cardiometabolic risk factors – HABS-HD}},
  journal = {Alzheimer s Research \& Therapy},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1186/s13195-025-01866-9},
  pmid    = {41035086},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01866-9}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

NHB Hispanic, and NHW participants prevalences were APOE ε4 (32.2%, 27.4%, 17.6%), diabetes (26.1%, 35.0%, 13.9%), hypertension (79.0%, 63.6%, 58.2%), obesity (56.8%, 50.3%, 38.5%), and tobacco dependence (12.9%, 7.5%, 3.9%).
In adjusted models, NHB and Hispanic ethnicity, APOE ε4, diabetes, hypertension, and tobacco dependence each independently predicted lower performance across all four cognitive domains (adjusted p < .001), whereas obesity showed domain-specific positive associations.
No race × risk-factor interactions remained significant after correction.
In intervention models, hypothetically eliminating diabetes and hypertension yielded the largest predicted improvements, especially in executive function and language, with the greatest gains projected among NHB and Hispanic racial ethnic group.
Cardiometabolic health markedly contributes to racial ethnic differences in cognitive aging beyond APOE ε4 effects.

Why it matters

This study found that diabetes, hypertension, APOE ε4, and tobacco dependence each independently predicted lower cognitive performance, and that hypothetically eliminating diabetes and hypertension yielded the largest predicted improvements, especially among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants. The authors suggest population-level interventions targeting diabetes and hypertension could narrow cognitive deficits, but these are modeled projections, not tested treatments.

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

Study details

Effect size62.0%; 32.2%; 27.4%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 42 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s Research & Therapy)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Alzheimer s Research & Therapy: journal h-index 146 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	2025 — 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	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 7 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	2.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Stanford University: institution h-index 2,684 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41035086)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	42 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100.
Total	44 / 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 14.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Disparities

Also in Disparities

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

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →