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 64 out of 100. Hippocampus size on brain scans

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Poor memory ability and small hippocampal volume measurements in magnetic resonance images co-occur in neurological patients. Numerous studies have examined the relationship between memory performance and hippocampal volumes in participants without neurological or psychiatric disorders, with widely varying results. Three hypotheses about volume-memory relationships in the normal human brain are discussed: "bigger is always better", a neuropsychological view that volume decreases due to normal aging are accompanied by memory decline, and a developmental perspective that regressive events in development may result in negative correlations between hippocampal volume and memory ability. Meta-analysis of results from 33 studies led to little support for the bigger-is-better hypothesis. A negative relationship between hippocampal volume and memory (smaller is better) was significant for studies with children, adolescents, and young adults. For studies with older adults, the most striking observation was extreme variability: the evidence for a positive relationship between hippocampal size and episodic memory ability in older adults was surprisingly weak. Some of the variability in results from older adults was associated with statistical methods of normalizing for age and head size, which are discussed.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 64/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 37 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 64 of 100. Total 64 of 100.37 of the 58 points we could judge = 64 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychologia)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
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 1 / 5 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted
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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 15193947)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 37 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total 64 / 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

Van Petten, C. (2004). Relationship between hippocampal volume and memory ability in healthy individuals across the lifespan: review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.006

Vancouver

Van Petten C. Relationship between hippocampal volume and memory ability in healthy individuals across the lifespan: review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia. 2004. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.006. PMID: 15193947.

BibTeX

@article{vanpetten2004-15193947,
  author  = {Van Petten, C.},
  title   = {{Relationship between hippocampal volume and memory ability in healthy individuals across the lifespan: review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Neuropsychologia},
  year    = {2004},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.006},
  pmid    = {15193947},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.006}
}

Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans

Similar studies

More on Hippocampus size on brain scans

See all studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans →