4.5 Article

Association of Vascular Risk Factors With Cognition in a Multiethnic Sample

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbu040

关键词

Cardiovascular disease; Cognitive decline; Ethnic differences; Racial differences

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [T32AG023480, R03 AG045494-01, T32AG000258, R21 AG03438501, R01 AG028786, 1R01AG037212-01]
  2. National Institutes of Health [T32 MH1993417, UL1 TR000062, KL2 TR000060]
  3. National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities [P60 MD000206]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To examine the relationship between cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and cognitive performance in a multiethnic sample of older adults. Method. We used longitudinal data from the Washington Heights-Inwood Columbia Aging Project. A composite score including smoking, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and central obesity represented CVRFs. Multiple group parallel process multivariate random effects regression models were used to model cognitive functioning and examine the contribution of CVRFs to baseline performance and change in general cognitive processing, memory, and executive functioning. Results. Presence of each CVRF was associated with a 0.1 SD lower score in general cognitive processing, memory, and executive functioning in black and Hispanic participants relative to whites. Baseline CVRFs were associated with poorer baseline cognitive performances among black women and Hispanic men. CVRF increase was related to baseline cognitive performance only among Hispanics. CVRFs were not related to cognitive decline. After adjustment for medications, CVRFs were not associated with cognition in Hispanic participants. Discussion. CVRFs are associated with poorer cognitive functioning, but not cognitive decline, among minority older adults. These relationships vary by gender and medication use. Consideration of unique racial, ethnic, and cultural factors is needed when examining relationships between CVRFs and cognition.

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

4.5
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