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.

59/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The benefits of statins, commonly prescribed for hypercholesterolemia, in treating Alzheimer's disease (AD) have not yet been fully established. A recent randomized clinical trial did not show any therapeutic effects of two statins on cognitive function in AD. Interestingly, however, the results of the Rotterdam study, one of the largest prospective cohort studies, showed reduced risk of AD in statin users. Based on the current understanding of statin actions and AD pathogenesis, it is still worth exploring whether statins can prevent AD when administered decades before the onset of AD or from midlife. This review discusses the possible beneficial effects of statins, drawn from previous clinical observations, pathogenic mechanisms, which include β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau metabolism, genetic and non-genetic risk factors (apolipoprotein E, cholesterol, sex, hypertension, and diabetes), and other clinical features (vascular dysfunction and oxidative and inflammatory stress) of AD. These findings suggest that administration of statins in midlife might prevent AD in late life by modifying genetic and non-genetic risk factors for AD. It should be clarified whether statins inhibit Aβ accumulation, tau pathological features, and brain atrophy in humans. To answer this question, a randomized controlled study using amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), tau-PET, and magnetic resonance imaging would be useful. This clinical evaluation could help us to overcome this devastating disease.

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

APA 7th

Shinohara, M., Sato, N., Shimamura, M., Kurinami, H., Hamasaki, T., Chatterjee, A., et al. (2014). Possible modification of Alzheimer's disease by statins in midlife: interactions with genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00071

Vancouver

Shinohara M, Sato N, Shimamura M, Kurinami H, Hamasaki T, Chatterjee A, et al. Possible modification of Alzheimer's disease by statins in midlife: interactions with genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2014. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2014.00071. PMID: 24795626.

BibTeX

@article{shinohara2014-24795626,
  author  = {Shinohara, M. and Sato, N. and Shimamura, M. and Kurinami, H. and Hamasaki, T. and Chatterjee, A. and Rakugi, H. and Morishita, R.},
  title   = {{Possible modification of Alzheimer's disease by statins in midlife: interactions with genetic and non-genetic risk factors}},
  journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.3389/fnagi.2014.00071},
  pmid    = {24795626},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00071}
}

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 8 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.

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 gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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 high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

Interestingly, however, the results of the Rotterdam study, one of the largest prospective cohort studies, showed reduced risk of AD in statin users.
These findings suggest that administration of statins in midlife might prevent AD in late life by modifying genetic and non-genetic risk factors for AD.

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

Study details

Study designcohort study
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience)
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	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2014 — 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)
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 24795626)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	34 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total	59 / 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 “non-genetic”

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