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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Mild cognitive impairment

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Background Cognitive impairment is a well-established predictor of activities of daily living (ADL) disability. Physical function may serve as an intermediary linking cognitive decline to functional loss, but whether this indirect association differs across the cognitive continuum from normal cognition (NC) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. Methods This cross-sectional study included 3,322 community-dwelling older adults (NC: n = 1,234; MCI: n = 814; AD: n = 1,274) from a geriatric clinic in Shanghai, China. Cognitive function was assessed using the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III. Physical function was measured as grip strength and reverse-transformed Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT; higher values indicate better mobility). Basic and instrumental ADL (BADL and IADL) were reverse-coded so that higher scores indicated better function. Regression-based bootstrap parallel indirect effect analyses (5,000 resamples) were performed in the full sample and within each cognitive stage, adjusting for age, sex, education, and BMI. Results Mobility showed a larger absolute indirect effect than grip strength for both BADL (0.015 vs. 0.002) and IADL (0.022 vs. 0.002). The mobility indirect effect increased across cognitive stages for both BADL (NC: 0.003; MCI: 0.005; AD: 0.022) and IADL (NC: 0.004; MCI: 0.008; AD: 0.029). Grip strength was non-significant in MCI and was clearest in AD for BADL. Substantial ADL ceiling effects, especially in NC and MCI, constrain interpretation of stage gradients. Standardized and structural-equation-model sensitivity analyses showed the same mobility-dominant pattern. Conclusions In this cross-sectional sample, mobility showed a progressively stronger statistical indirect association with the cognition-ADL relationship as cognitive impairment deepened. The full-sample mobility association persisted after excluding participants with ceiling-level ADL scores. These findings support stage-specific mobility assessment but require longitudinal and experimental confirmation.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 25 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Raw total 40 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 40 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 40 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,234 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 — / 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 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 25 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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

Wen, Z., Xia, H., Peng, Y., Xu, Z., Xu, Y., & Guo, Q. (2026). Stage-dependent indirect association between mobility and the cognition-ADL relationship: a cross-sectional study of older adults across the cognitive continuum. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10721850/v1

Vancouver

Wen Z, Xia H, Peng Y, Xu Z, Xu Y, Guo Q. Stage-dependent indirect association between mobility and the cognition-ADL relationship: a cross-sectional study of older adults across the cognitive continuum. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10721850/v1.

BibTeX

@article{wen2026-012cc430,
  author  = {Wen, Z. and Xia, H. and Peng, Y. and Xu, Z. and Xu, Y. and Guo, Q.},
  title   = {{Stage-dependent indirect association between mobility and the cognition-ADL relationship: a cross-sectional study of older adults across the cognitive continuum}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10721850/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10721850/v1}
}

Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment

Similar studies

More on Mild cognitive impairment

See all studies in Mild cognitive impairment →