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.

70/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

These were compared with the prevalence of 3 clinically defined diagnostic groups (mild cognitive impairment or dementia, dementia, and clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease). Results The median (interquartile range) age was 77 (72-83) years in the clinical cohort (n = 5213 participants), 77 (70-83) years in the amyloid PET cohort (n = 1524 participants), and 77 (69-83) years in the tau PET cohort (n = 576 participants). Among women, these values were 10% (95% CI, 6%-14%) vs 1% (95% CI, 1%-1%) at age 70 years and 33% (95% CI, 25%-41%) vs 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) at age 85 years (P Conclusions and relevance Results of this study suggest that biologically defined Alzheimer disease is more prevalent than clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease at any age and is 3 times more prevalent at age 85 years among both women and men. These findings illustrate the magnitude of the consequences on public health that potentially exist by intervening with disease-specific treatments to prevent symptom onset.

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

APA 7th

Jack, C. R., Therneau, T. M., Weigand, S. D., Wiste, H. J., Knopman, D. S., Vemuri, P., et al. (2019). Prevalence of Biologically vs Clinically Defined Alzheimer Spectrum Entities Using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association Research Framework. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1971

Vancouver

Jack CR, Therneau TM, Weigand SD, Wiste HJ, Knopman DS, Vemuri P, et al. Prevalence of Biologically vs Clinically Defined Alzheimer Spectrum Entities Using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association Research Framework. JAMA neurology. 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1971. PMID: 31305929.

BibTeX

@article{jack2019-31305929,
  author  = {Jack, C. R. and Therneau, T. M. and Weigand, S. D. and Wiste, H. J. and Knopman, D. S. and Vemuri, P. and Lowe, V. J. and Mielke, M. M. and others},
  title   = {{Prevalence of Biologically vs Clinically Defined Alzheimer Spectrum Entities Using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association Research Framework}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1971},
  pmid    = {31305929},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1971}
}

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

These were compared with the prevalence of 3 clinically defined diagnostic groups (mild cognitive impairment or dementia, dementia, and clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease).
Results The median (interquartile range) age was 77 (72-83) years in the clinical cohort (n = 5213 participants), 77 (70-83) years in the amyloid PET cohort (n = 1524 participants), and 77 (69-83) years in the tau PET cohort (n = 576 participants).
Among women, these values were 10% (95% CI, 6%-14%) vs 1% (95% CI, 1%-1%) at age 70 years and 33% (95% CI, 25%-41%) vs 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) at age 85 years (P < .001).
These findings illustrate the magnitude of the consequences on public health that potentially exist by intervening with disease-specific treatments to prevent symptom onset.

Why it matters

Biologically defined Alzheimer's disease was more prevalent than clinically defined probable Alzheimer's disease at any age and three times more prevalent at age 85. This has implications for public health planning and for intervening with disease-specific treatments to prevent symptom onset, but the study itself tested no treatment.

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

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants4,660
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 70/100

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

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (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	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	4,660 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)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 301 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	33.4 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019
Impact for its field and year	5 / 6	Cited 23.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 27 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 115 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Ronald Carl Petersen: h-index 209 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Mayo Clinic: institution h-index 1,606 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31305929)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	70 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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 56.

Later studies that cite this one

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

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also in Biomarkers

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

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →