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.

57/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective We assessed salience of subjective memory complaints (SMCs) by older individuals as a predictor of subsequent cognitive impairment while accounting for risk factors and eventual neuropathologies. Methods Subjects (n = 531) enrolled while cognitively intact at the University of Kentucky were asked annually if they perceived changes in memory since their last visit. A multistate model estimated when transition to impairment occurred while adjusting for intervening death. Risk factors affecting the timing and probability of an impairment were identified. The association between SMCs and Alzheimer-type neuropathology was assessed from autopsies (n = 243). Results SMCs were reported by more than half (55.7%) of the cohort, and were associated with increased risk of impairment (unadjusted odds ratio = 2.8, p Conclusion SMC reporters are at a higher risk of future cognitive impairment and have higher levels of Alzheimer-type brain pathology even when impairment does not occur. As potential harbingers of future cognitive decline, physicians should query and monitor SMCs from their older patients.

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

APA 7th

Kryscio, R. J., Abner, E. L., Cooper, G. E., Fardo, D. W., Jicha, G. A., Nelson, P. T., et al. (2014). Self-reported memory complaints: implications from a longitudinal cohort with autopsies. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000856

Vancouver

Kryscio RJ, Abner EL, Cooper GE, Fardo DW, Jicha GA, Nelson PT, et al. Self-reported memory complaints: implications from a longitudinal cohort with autopsies. Neurology. 2014. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000000856. PMID: 25253756.

BibTeX

@article{kryscio2014-25253756,
  author  = {Kryscio, R. J. and Abner, E. L. and Cooper, G. E. and Fardo, D. W. and Jicha, G. A. and Nelson, P. T. and Smith, C. D. and Van Eldik, L. J. and others},
  title   = {{Self-reported memory complaints: implications from a longitudinal cohort with autopsies}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000000856},
  pmid    = {25253756},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000856}
}

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Results SMCs were reported by more than half (55.7%) of the cohort, and were associated with increased risk of impairment (unadjusted odds ratio = 2.8, p < 0.0001).

Why it matters

In this cohort with autopsies, self-reported memory complaints were associated with increased risk of future cognitive impairment and with higher levels of Alzheimer-type brain pathology even when impairment did not occur. The authors suggest physicians should query and monitor such complaints, but this concerns prediction and monitoring, not treatment, cure, or prevention.

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

Study details

Participants531
Effect size55.7%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 57/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record	4 / 4	Neurology: journal h-index 525 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	531 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	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 190 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	13.6 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 16.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 10 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 35 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Frederick A. Schmitt: h-index 83 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Kentucky: institution h-index 824 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25253756)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	57 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Studies this one cites

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

Later studies that cite this one

10 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Genetics

Also in Genetics

173 studies in the library are filed under Genetics with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Genetics hub.

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →