4.4 Article

Inflammatory Markers and Neuropsychological Functioning: The Framingham Heart Study

期刊

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 21-30

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000328864

关键词

Memory; Executive functioning; Inflammation; Cognition; WRAT-3 reading

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: We hypothesized that inflammatory markers are cross-sectionally and longitudinally associated with neuropsychological indicators of early ischemia and Alzheimer's disease. Methods: Framingham Offspring Study participants, free of clinical stroke or dementia (n = 1,878; 60 +/- 9 years; 54% women), underwent neuropsychological assessment and ascertainment of 11 inflammatory markers. Follow-up neuropsychological assessments (6.3 +/- 1.0 years) were conducted on 1,352 of the original 1,878 participants. Results: Multivariable linear regression related the inflammatory markers to cross-sectional performance and longitudinal change in neuropsychological performances. Secondary models included a twelfth factor, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), available on a subset of the sample (n = 1,393 cross-sectional; n = 1,213 longitudinal). Results suggest a few modest cross-sectional inflammatory and neuropsychological associations, particularly for tests assessing visual organization (C-reactive protein, p = 0.007), and a few modest relations between inflammatory markers and neuropsychological change, particularly for executive functioning (TNF-alpha, p = 0.004). Secondary analyses suggested that inflammatory markers were cross-sectionally (TNF-alpha, p = 0.004) related to reading performance. Conclusions: Our findings are largely negative, but suggest that specific inflammatory markers may have limited associations with poorer cognition and reading performance among community-dwelling adults. Because of multiple testing concerns, our limited positive findings are offered as hypothesis generating and require replication in other studies. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.4
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