4.7 Article

Association Between Serum 25(OH) Vitamin D and the Risk of Cognitive Decline in Older Women

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls075

关键词

Vitamin D; Cognitive decline; Executive function; Cohort studies; Risk factors in epidemiology

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG05407, AR35582, AG05394, AR35584, AR35583, AG005407, AG027576, AG005394, AG027574]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results of prospective studies examining the association between 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels and cognitive decline have been inconsistent. We tested the hypothesis that lower 25(OH)D levels are associated with a greater likelihood of cognitive impairment and risk of cognitive decline. The study is a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort of 6,257 community-dwelling elderly women followed for 4 years. Global cognitive function was measured by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination and executive function was measured by Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B). Cognitive impairment at baseline was defined as a score > 1.5 SD below the sample mean; cognitive decline was defined as decline from baseline to follow-up > 1 SD from mean change in score. Women with very low vitamin D levels had an increased odds of global cognitive impairment at baseline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.60 (1.05-2.42) for women with 25(OH)D < 10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L) compared with those with 25(OH)D levels >= 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L). Compared with women with baseline 25(OH)D level >= 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L), women with lower levels had an increased risk of global cognitive decline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.58(1.12-2.22) for women with levels < 10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L), and 1.31 (1.04-1.64) for those with levels 10-19.9 ng/mL (25-49 nmol/L). Levels of 25(OH)D were not associated with executive cognitive function. Low 25(OH)D levels among older women were associated with a higher odds of global cognitive impairment and a higher risk of global cognitive decline.

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