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. Disparities

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to falsely positive perceptions of their cognitive function in the presence of cognitive impairment than non-Hispanic Whites. On the other hand, non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to manifest negative ratings even in the absence of cognitive impairment. Our findings demonstrate the critical role of race/ethnicity in determining discordance between subjective and objective measures of cognition and highlight the importance of a tailored effort to promote dementia diagnosis and care.

Key findings

Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to falsely positive perceptions of their cognitive function in the presence of cognitive impairment than non-Hispanic Whites.
On the other hand, non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to manifest negative ratings even in the absence of cognitive impairment.
Our findings demonstrate the critical role of race/ethnicity in determining discordance between subjective and objective measures of cognition and highlight the importance of a tailored effort to promote dementia diagnosis and care.

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

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants3,096
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	3,096 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	— / 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
Multi-centre collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34862119)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	33 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 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.

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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Jang, Y., Haley, W. E., Choi, E. Y., & Franco, Y. (2022). Racial/Ethnic Differences in Correspondence Between Subjective Cognitive Ratings and Cognitive Impairment. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2021.10.015

Vancouver

Jang Y, Haley WE, Choi EY, Franco Y. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Correspondence Between Subjective Cognitive Ratings and Cognitive Impairment. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2021.10.015. PMID: 34862119.

BibTeX

@article{jang2022-34862119,
  author  = {Jang, Yuri and Haley, William E and Choi, Eun Young and Franco, Yujin},
  title   = {{Racial/Ethnic Differences in Correspondence Between Subjective Cognitive Ratings and Cognitive Impairment}},
  journal = {The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jagp.2021.10.015},
  pmid    = {34862119},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2021.10.015}
}

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “reserve”

208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →