4.4 Article

Cognitive function has a stronger correlation with perceived age than with chronological age

期刊

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 779-784

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.13972

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; biomarker; face; mild cognitive impairment; perceived age

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17K09294]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K09294] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The perceived age of older adults, as measured by their facial appearance, has been shown to be a robust biomarker of aging predictive of survival, telomere length and DNA methylation, and reportedly correlates with carotid atherosclerosis and bone status. This study aimed to determine whether metrics of dementia, including general cognition, vitality, depressive state and self-supportability, have stronger correlations with perceived age than with chronological age. Methods This study included 124 patients who were admitted to the Department of Geriatric Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital, on account of being suspected of cognitive decline. The Mini-Mental State Examination, Vitality Index, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, instrumental activities of daily living and Barthel Index were carried out. Five experienced geriatricians and five experienced clinical psychologists determined the perceived age of participants based on photographs. Results The average values of the 10 raters showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (3, 10) = 0.941). Steiger's test revealed that perceived age showed a significantly better correlation with the Mini-Mental State Examination (female) and Vitality Index (total, female) than did chronological age, but not with Geriatric Depression Scale-15, instrumental activities of daily living or the Barthel Index. Conclusions Perceived age was shown to be a reliable biomarker for cognitive assessment.Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; center dot center dot: center dot center dot-center dot center dot.

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