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.

16/100

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.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

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement. The AADAPt project offers new insights into aging in older African Americans that includes data on cognition, social engagement, and physical health, which are crucial for understanding the experience of under-represented groups and making future studies more inclusive. These findings reflect a window of time for a geographically-focused cohort, and the lessons learned from this study likely have broader implications for shaping the health of these older African American adults. Keywords: African American, Dementia, Observational Study.

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

APA 7th

Lindauer, A., Croff, R., Duff, K., Mattek, N., Fuller, P., Pierce, A., et al. (2024). The African American Dementia and Aging Project (AADAPt): An Oregon-based Longitudinal Study. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.06.24306831

Vancouver

Lindauer A, Croff R, Duff K, Mattek N, Fuller P, Pierce A, et al. The African American Dementia and Aging Project (AADAPt): An Oregon-based Longitudinal Study. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.05.06.24306831. PMID: 38766213.

BibTeX

@article{lindauer2024-38766213,
  author  = {Lindauer, Allison and Croff, Raina and Duff, Kevin and Mattek, Nora and Fuller, Patrice and Pierce, Aimee and Bonds, Kalisha and Kaye, Jeffrey},
  title   = {{The African American Dementia and Aging Project (AADAPt): An Oregon-based Longitudinal Study}},
  journal = {medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1101/2024.05.06.24306831},
  pmid    = {38766213},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.06.24306831}
}

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 lists 177 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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

AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement.
The AADAPt project offers new insights into aging in older African Americans that includes data on cognition, social engagement, and physical health, which are crucial for understanding the experience of under-represented groups and making future studies more inclusive.
These findings reflect a window of time for a geographically-focused cohort, and the lessons learned from this study likely have broader implications for shaping the health of these older African American adults.
Keywords: African American, Dementia, Observational Study.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants177
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 16/100

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 45 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 60 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over 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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	177 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)
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 38766213)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	27 / 60	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 60 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 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.

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 “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →