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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objectives To examine the evolution of instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) performance according to the presence of brain amyloid deposition. Design Longitudinal analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Setting Neuroimaging ancillary study from the Multidomain Alzheimer Prevention Trial (MAPT). Participants Community-dwelling individuals aged 70 and older without dementia (N = 269; 60% female, mean age 75±4). Measurements Linear mixed models were used to assess the 36-month evolution of the performance of an IADL questionnaire for primary prevention studies in dementia, the Activity of Daily Living Prevention Instrument (ADL-PI), according to the presence of amyloid deposition using florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) (standardized uptake value≥1.17). Additional analyses were also conducted to examine the changes in specific domains of daily functioning with and without adjustment for age, sex, apolipoprotein E, randomization group, and time between baseline and PET examination. Results One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. Amyloid-negative participants had statistically significant improvement in ADL-PI total score between baseline and 36 months (p=.04). The difference after 3 years between amyloid-positive and -negative participants was not significant (β=-0.95±0.53 at 36 months, p=.08; adjusted models: β=-1.07±0.56, p=.06). Amyloid-negative participants also improved in memory-related IADLs (p Conclusion Amyloid-positive and -negative older adults are likely to have different trajectories in IADL performance. Future research is needed to better understand the relationship between amyloid plaques and functional limitations.

Key findings

Why it matters

In 269 older adults without dementia, those without brain amyloid showed improvement in daily activity scores over 36 months, but the difference between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative participants was not significant. This means amyloid status was not clearly linked to changes in daily functioning in this group.

Study details

How this study scored 61/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 2 of 7; Citations per year 1 of 5; Impact for its field and year 1 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 3 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 59 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 61 of 100. Total 61 of 100.59 of the 96 points we could judge = 61 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 59 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
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 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 269 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited 2 / 7 Cited 13 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 1 / 5 1.3 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018
Impact for its field and year 1 / 6 Cited 0.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Inserm: institution h-index 1,988 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 3 / 3 OpenAlex lists 10 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30207586)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 59 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 59 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100.
Total 61 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 10 Oct 2026), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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 names 7 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.

APA 7th

Lilamand, M., Cesari, M., Cantet, C., Payoux, P., Andrieu, S., Vellas, B., et al. (2018). Relationship Between Brain Amyloid Deposition and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults: A Longitudinal Study from the Multidomain Alzheimer Prevention Trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15497

Vancouver

Lilamand M, Cesari M, Cantet C, Payoux P, Andrieu S, Vellas B, et al. Relationship Between Brain Amyloid Deposition and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults: A Longitudinal Study from the Multidomain Alzheimer Prevention Trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15497. PMID: 30207586.

BibTeX

@article{lilamand2018-30207586,
  author  = {Lilamand, M. and Cesari, M. and Cantet, C. and Payoux, P. and Andrieu, S. and Vellas, B. and {the MAPT/DSA study group}},
  title   = {{Relationship Between Brain Amyloid Deposition and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults: A Longitudinal Study from the Multidomain Alzheimer Prevention Trial}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.15497},
  pmid    = {30207586},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15497}
}

Studies this one cites

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

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Treatments

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →