Home › Research › Prevention trials
Testing for limits of cognitive reserve capacity: a promising strategy for early diagnosis of dementia?
Baltes MM, Kühl KP, Sowarka D.. Journal of gerontology, 1992-05-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Examination of the range and limits of cognitive reserve capacity (plasticity) by means of cognitive training is proffered as a promising diagnostic strategy for the early (premorbid) identification of dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease, in nonclinical populations. First data are presented from a sample of elderly independent-living people classified as healthy or at risk (beginning dementia) on the basis of a standardized psychiatric interview. Randomly assigned groups participated in a cognitive training program based on figural relations, a component of fluid intelligence. Stepwise regression analyses demonstrated that only healthy elderly profited from training and that only post-training scores predicted the psychiatric "at risk" diagnosis. The results hold promise for further development of testing-the-limits of individual differences in cognitive reserve capacity to identify premorbid states of dementia in nonclinical samples.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Baltes, M. M., Kühl, K. P., & Sowarka, D. (1992). Testing for limits of cognitive reserve capacity: a promising strategy for early diagnosis of dementia? Journal of gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.3.p165
Vancouver
Baltes MM, Kühl KP, Sowarka D. Testing for limits of cognitive reserve capacity: a promising strategy for early diagnosis of dementia? Journal of gerontology. 1992. doi:10.1093/geronj/47.3.p165. PMID: 1573199.
BibTeX
@article{baltes1992-1573199,
author = {Baltes, M. M. and Kühl, K. P. and Sowarka, D.},
title = {{Testing for limits of cognitive reserve capacity: a promising strategy for early diagnosis of dementia?}},
journal = {Journal of gerontology},
year = {1992},
doi = {10.1093/geronj/47.3.p165},
pmid = {1573199},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.3.p165}
}
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.
Key findings
- Stepwise regression analyses demonstrated that only healthy elderly profited from training and that only post-training scores predicted the psychiatric "at risk" diagnosis.
- The results hold promise for further development of testing-the-limits of individual differences in cognitive reserve capacity to identify premorbid states of dementia in nonclinical samples.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of gerontology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1992 — 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 1573199) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.