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.

46/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

Compared to non-Hispanic or Latino (NH) White participants, Hispanic or Latino (3.52 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.61, 4.42]); NH Asian (2.97 points, 95% CI: [1.71, 4.22]); and NH Black participants (2.79 points, 95% CI: [1.96, 3.63]) participants demonstrated higher levels of endorsement of the VPAI items at baseline. Differences may exist among participants from differing ethnic and racial groups in motivations to undergo biomarker testing in the setting of a preclinical AD trial. HIGHLIGHTS: Representative samples in AD clinical trials are vital to result in generalizability. We assessed motivations to undergo amyloid imaging in a preclinical AD trial. Racial and ethnic minority groups showed higher endorsement of VPAI items. Differences were driven by perceived risk, plan/prepare, and curiosity domains. Few observations among racial and ethnic groups changed after biomarker disclosure.

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

APA 7th

Magana-Ramirez, C. M., Irizarry-Martinez, G., Gillen, D. L., & Grill, J. D. (2024). Reasons for undergoing amyloid imaging among diverse enrollees in the A4 study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14077

Vancouver

Magana-Ramirez CM, Irizarry-Martinez G, Gillen DL, Grill JD. Reasons for undergoing amyloid imaging among diverse enrollees in the A4 study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.14077. PMID: 39041310.

BibTeX

@article{maganaramirez2024-39041310,
  author  = {Magana-Ramirez, Christina M and Irizarry-Martinez, Gimarie and Gillen, Daniel L and Grill, Joshua D},
  title   = {{Reasons for undergoing amyloid imaging among diverse enrollees in the A4 study}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.14077},
  pmid    = {39041310},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14077}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

Compared to non-Hispanic or Latino (NH) White participants, Hispanic or Latino (3.52 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.61, 4.42]); NH Asian (2.97 points, 95% CI: [1.71, 4.22]); and NH Black participants (2.79 points, 95% CI: [1.96, 3.63]) participants demonstrated higher levels of endorsement of the VPAI items at baseline.
Differences may exist among participants from differing ethnic and racial groups in motivations to undergo biomarker testing in the setting of a preclinical AD trial.
HIGHLIGHTS: Representative samples in AD clinical trials are vital to result in generalizability.
We assessed motivations to undergo amyloid imaging in a preclinical AD trial.
Racial and ethnic minority groups showed higher endorsement of VPAI items.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 46/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	2024 — 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	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 39041310)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	26 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100.
Total	46 / 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 Disparities from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →