4.6 Article

Undetected Neurodegenerative Disease Biases Estimates of Cognitive Change in Older Adults

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 849-860

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0956797620985518

关键词

cognitive aging; beta-amyloid; tau; neurodegeneration; memory; processing speed

资金

  1. Dementia Australia Research Foundation
  2. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health
  3. Yulgilbar Alzheimer's Research Program
  4. Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Mental Health
  5. National Institutes of Health [P50AG005681, P01AG003991, P01AG026276]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurodegenerative disease is common among older adults and can bias estimates of cognitive change towards decline in otherwise healthy older adults when the presence of early neurodegenerative disease is not accounted for. By adjusting for biomarker status, it was found that cognitively normal older adults did not show decline in any cognitive domain.
Neurodegenerative disease is highly prevalent among older adults and, if undetected, may obscure estimates of cognitive change among aging samples. Our aim in this study was to determine the nature and magnitude of cognitive change in the absence of common neuropathologic markers of neurodegenerative disease. Cognitively normal older adults (ages 65-89 years, N = 199) were classified as normal or abnormal using neuroimaging and cerebrospinal-fluid biomarkers of beta-amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration. When cognitive change was modeled without accounting for biomarker status, significant decline was evident for semantic memory, processing speed, and working memory. However, after adjusting for biomarker status, we found that the rate of change was attenuated and that the biomarker-normal group demonstrated no decline for any cognitive domain. These results indicate that estimates of cognitive change in otherwise healthy older adults will be biased toward decline when the presence of early neurodegenerative disease is not accounted for.

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

4.6
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