Observational studyJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2024
A Comparison of an Australian Observational Longitudinal Alzheimer's Disease Cohort to Community-Based Australian Data.
Observational study in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a model to predict the progression of Alzheimer's disease.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Tool to Predict Onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Dementia.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the Florey Dementia Risk Score web-based tool to screen for Alzheimer's disease in primary care.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Observational Alzheimer's disease (AD) cohorts including the Australian, Biomarkers, Imaging and Lifestyle (AIBL) Study have enhanced our understanding of AD. The generalizability of findings from AIBL to the general population has yet to be studied. Objective: We aimed to compare characteristics of people with AD dementia in AIBL to 1) the general population of older Australians using pharmacological treatment for AD dementia, and to 2) the general population of older Australians who self-reported a diagnosis of dementia. Methods: Descriptive study comparing people aged 65 years of over (1) in AIBL that had a diagnosis of AD dementia, (2) dispensed with pharmacological treatment for AD in Australia in 2021 linked to the Australian census in 2021 (refer to as PBS/census), (3) self-reported a diagnosis of dementia in the 2021 Australian census (refer to as dementia/census). Baseline characteristics included age, sex, highest education attainment, primary language, and medical co-morbidities. Results: Participants in AIBL were younger, had more years of education, and had a lower culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) population compared to the PBS/census cohort and dementia/census cohort (mean age±standard deviation - AIBL 79±7 years, PBS/census 81±7, p < 0.001, dementia/census 83±8, p < 0.001; greater than 12 years of education AIBL 40%, PBS/census 35%, p = 0.020, dementia/census 29%, p < 0.001; CALD - AIBL 3%, PBS/census 20%, p < 0.001, dementia/census 22%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that care should be taken regarding the generalizability of AIBL in CALD populations and the interpretation of results on the natural history of AD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.