Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Persistent racial disparities in dementia raise concerns regarding the validity and generalizability of existing prognostic models across diverse populations. We evaluated the utility of the 2024 Lancet Commission risk factors and resting heart rate (RHR) for race-specific dementia risk prediction using data from 55,004 participants in the National Alzheimers Coordinating Center cohort. Cox proportional hazards and Random Survival Forest (RSF) models were developed separately for Black, White, Asian, and American Indian participants to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year time to dementia. RSF consistently outperformed Cox models across all racial groups and prediction horizons, achieving 5-year AUCs of 0.88-0.91 compared with 0.69-0.81 for Cox models. Inclusion of RHR modestly and consistently improved predictive performance across racial groups. Predictor importance varied between racial groups, suggesting heterogeneity in dementia risk profiles and disease presentation. These findings support the potential utility of RHR as a complementary prognostic biomarker and highlight the importance of equitable, personalized dementia risk prediction across diverse populations.

Key findings

Why it matters

Using NACC data, this analysis found that random survival forest models predicted dementia risk better than Cox models across racial groups, and that adding resting heart rate modestly improved prediction. It is about risk prediction tools, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 27 of the 94 points it could be judged on, which is 29 of 100. Raw total 29 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 29 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 29 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 27 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint))
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 55,004 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 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
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 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Siu Kwan Sze: h-index 66 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Brock University: institution h-index 308 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 27 / 94 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100.
Total 29 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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).

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

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.

APA 7th

Alaka, S. A., Ngan, S.-F. C., Iyappan, R., Nwaeze, J., D'Amore, B., Katoueezadeh, M., et al. (2026). Race-Specific Dementia Risk Prediction Using 2024 Lancet Commission Risk Factors and Resting Heart Rate: A Survival Analysis of 55,004 NACC Participants. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.23.26361129

Vancouver

Alaka SA, Ngan S.-FC, Iyappan R, Nwaeze J, D'Amore B, Katoueezadeh M, et al. Race-Specific Dementia Risk Prediction Using 2024 Lancet Commission Risk Factors and Resting Heart Rate: A Survival Analysis of 55,004 NACC Participants. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.08.23.26361129.

BibTeX

@article{alaka2026-cbc65893,
  author  = {Alaka, S. A. and Ngan, S.-F. C. and Iyappan, R. and Nwaeze, J. and D'Amore, B. and Katoueezadeh, M. and Thinakaran, Y. and Laein and others},
  title   = {{Race-Specific Dementia Risk Prediction Using 2024 Lancet Commission Risk Factors and Resting Heart Rate: A Survival Analysis of 55,004 NACC Participants}},
  journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.08.23.26361129},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.23.26361129}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 14.

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “biobank”

1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biobank”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →