Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40455442›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Generational Differences in Age-Specific Dementia Prevalence Rates.

Xiaoxue Dou, Sabrina Lenzen, Luke B Connelly, Ruozhou Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Two steps forward, one step back: cohort shifts in cognitive function trajectories in aging European populations.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Trends in physical and mental health needs across generations in Australia.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xiaoxue DouCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sabrina LenzenCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Luke B ConnellyCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ruozhou LinSchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Dementia is a significant public health challenge, with its prevalence expected to increase as life expectancy continues to extend globally. Objective: To estimate generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from 1994 to 2021 from the United States Health and Retirement Study (HRS), from 2004 to 2020 from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), and from 2002 to 2019 from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Statistical analysis was performed from May 2023 to February 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, 2 different methods-the validated algorithm and machine learning techniques as the robustness check-were used to identify respondents with probable dementia. Then the status of dementia was used to estimate the association of cohort with dementia status by age-period-cohort methodology. Results: Of the 99 420 individuals (mean [SD] age, 79.1 [6.2] years; 59.2% women) in the HRS dataset, 21 069 (21.2%) were included in this study; of the 83 580 individuals (mean [SD] age, 78.6 [5.9] years; 54.7% women) in the SHARE dataset, 32 490 (38.9%) were included in this study; and of the 31 384 individuals (mean [SD] age, 77.9 [5.6] years; 55.8% women) in the ELSA dataset, 8878 (28.3%) were included in this study. Focusing on people aged 71 years or older and controlling for age and period effects, birth cohorts born more recently were less likely to develop dementia in all 3 regions, albeit at different rates (point estimate for 1944-1948 vs 1919-1923 cohorts: US, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.34] vs -0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.10]; Europe, -1.49 [95% CI, -1.72 to -1.27] vs -0.24 [95% CI, -0.35 to -0.13]; and England, -0.48 [95% CI, -0.89 to -0.08] vs -0.23 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.07]). This decreasing trend was more pronounced among women than men (point estimate in 1944-1948 for women vs men: US, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.86 to -0.30] vs -0.48 [95% CI, -0.84 to -0.13]; Europe, -1.50 [95% CI, -1.80 to -1.21] vs -1.34 [95% CI, -1.70 to -0.99]; and England, -0.76 [95% CI, -1.30 to -0.23] vs -0.07 [95% CI, -0.69 to 0.54]); the point estimates for men in England were not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study examining generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England, we found that individuals from more recent birth cohorts had lower proportions of people with dementia. Work of this kind is relevant to plan for health and long-term care policy and workforce requirements across these regions now and into the future.

Indexed as

DementiaAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandEuropeFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePrevalenceUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40455442
PMCPMC12551361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.