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

Plain-language summary

Later birth year was associated with higher initial cognitive levels for Whites and Blacks, but not Hispanics. Later birth year was also associated with less rapid rate of decline in all three racial/ethnic groups. More years of education, higher childhood socioeconomic status, and, to a smaller extent, greater cardiovascular disease burden accounted for higher intercepts in the later-born cohort, but did not account for attenuated slope of cognitive decline. Later birth year is related to a slower rate of age-related decline in some cognitive domains in some racial/ethnic groups. Our analyses suggest that racial/ethnic and social inequalities are part of the mechanisms driving secular trends in cognitive aging and dementia.

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

APA 7th

Vonk, J. M. J., Rentería, M. A., Avila, J. F., Schupf, N., Noble, J. M., Mayeux, R., et al. (2019). Secular trends in cognitive trajectories of diverse older adults. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4944

Vancouver

Vonk JMJ, Rentería MA, Avila JF, Schupf N, Noble JM, Mayeux R, et al. Secular trends in cognitive trajectories of diverse older adults. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4944. PMID: 31672483.

BibTeX

@article{vonk2019-31672483,
  author  = {Vonk, Jet M J and Rentería, Miguel Arce and Avila, Justina F and Schupf, Nicole and Noble, James M and Mayeux, Richard and Brickman, Adam M and Manly, Jennifer J},
  title   = {{Secular trends in cognitive trajectories of diverse older adults}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4944},
  pmid    = {31672483},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4944}
}

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 8 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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

Later birth year was associated with higher initial cognitive levels for Whites and Blacks, but not Hispanics.
Later birth year was also associated with less rapid rate of decline in all three racial/ethnic groups.
More years of education, higher childhood socioeconomic status, and, to a smaller extent, greater cardiovascular disease burden accounted for higher intercepts in the later-born cohort, but did not account for attenuated slope of cognitive decline.
Later birth year is related to a slower rate of age-related decline in some cognitive domains in some racial/ethnic groups.
Our analyses suggest that racial/ethnic and social inequalities are part of the mechanisms driving secular trends in cognitive aging and dementia.

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

Study details

Study designcohort study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 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	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 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 31672483)
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.

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 “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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →