4.7 Article

Cohort Profile: A prospective cohort study of objective physical and cognitive capability and visual health in an ageing population of men and women in Norfolk (EPIC-Norfolk 3)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 1063-1072

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt086

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council, UK [G0401527]
  2. Cancer Research UK [C864/A8257]
  3. Research into Ageing [262]
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12015/1, G1000143, G0401527, MC_U106179471] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10084, NF-SI-0512-10114] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. MRC [MC_UU_12015/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) is a 10-country collaborative study in which EPIC-Norfolk is one of the UK centres. EPIC-Norfolk examined 25 639 men and women resident in East Anglia (aged 40-79 years), between 1993 and 1997. The EPIC collaboration was set up to examine the dietary determinants of cancer, but the remit in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort was broadened from the outset to include determinants of other health conditions and chronic diseases. EPIC-Norfolk completed a third round of health examinations (EPIC-Norfolk 3 or 3HC) in December 2011, on 8623 participants in the age range 48-92 years. EPIC-Norfolk focused on objective measures of cognitive function, physical capability and visual health, adapting this existing mid-life cohort to the current need to investigate healthy and independent living for ageing societies. With a wealth of longitudinal data and a biobank (including DNA) collected at up to three separate time points, EPIC-Norfolk offers the unique opportunity to investigate the association of lifestyle and biological factors, including genetic exposures, with a range of health outcomes in middle and later life. Information for data access can be found on the study website, details as given in this cohort profile.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据