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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

Among the cohort of 7180 older adults (median age, 74 years [range, 65-102 years]; 4729 women [65.9%]), 1036 were African American or Black (14.4%), 21 were American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3%), 143 were Asian (2.0%), 332 were Hispanic (4.6%), and 5648 were non-Hispanic White (78.7%); the median educational level was 16.0 years (range, 1.0-29.0 years). After adjustment for selection basis using propensity score weighting, seizure was associated with a 40% higher risk of cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65), TBI with a 25% higher risk of cognitive impairment (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.34), and both seizure and TBI were associated with a 57% higher risk (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.23-2.01). The interaction models indicated that Hispanic participants with TBI and seizures had a higher risk of cognitive impairment compared with other racial and ethnic groups. The use of antiseizure medications (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.99-1.53), antidepressants (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.17-1.50), and antipsychotics (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.18-3.89) was associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment, while anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic use (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94) was associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study highlights the importance of addressing TBI and seizures as risk factors for cognitive impairment among older adults. Addressing the broader social determinants of health and bridging the health divide across various racial and ethnic groups are essential for the comprehensive management and prevention of dementia.

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

APA 7th

Zhu, Y., Williams, J., Beyene, K., Trani, J.-F., & Babulal, G. M. (2024). Traumatic Brain Injury, Seizures, and Cognitive Impairment Among Older Adults. JAMA network open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26590

Vancouver

Zhu Y, Williams J, Beyene K, Trani J.-F, Babulal GM. Traumatic Brain Injury, Seizures, and Cognitive Impairment Among Older Adults. JAMA network open. 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26590. PMID: 39115844.

BibTeX

@article{zhu2024-39115844,
  author  = {Zhu, Yiqi and Williams, Jonathan and Beyene, Kebede and Trani, Jean-Francois and Babulal, Ganesh M},
  title   = {{Traumatic Brain Injury, Seizures, and Cognitive Impairment Among Older Adults}},
  journal = {JAMA network open},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26590},
  pmid    = {39115844},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26590}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / 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; Multicenter collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 39 of the 59 points it could be judged on, which is 66 of 100. Total 66 of 100.39 of the 59 points we could judge = 66 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, 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 and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 59 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA network open)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 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 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39115844)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 39 / 59 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 59 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total 66 / 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 →