4.6 Article

Truncal Fat and Frailty Are Important Predictors of Cognitive Performance among Aging Adults with Obesity

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 425-429

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-022-1776-x

关键词

Frailty; obesity; cognition

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [RO1-DK109950]
  2. VA Office of Research and Development [CX002161]
  3. Houston Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety [CIN13-413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the associations among cognition, frailty, and obesity in older adults. The findings suggest that cognition may worsen in community-dwelling older adults with obesity, particularly with greater truncal fat mass. Frailty appears to be an important predictor of cognitive performance in this population.
Objectives To explore associations among cognition, frailty, and obesity in older adults. Design Descriptive, secondary analysis of baseline data from two related lifestyle intervention trials. Setting Clinical study open to civilian population through the Center for Translational Research on Inflammatory Diseases at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, TX. Participants One hundred eight community-dwelling adults with obesity, aged 65 or older, recruited consecutively from two lifestyle intervention trials. Measurements Cognition was assessed using Composite Age-Adjusted Scale Score from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox COGNITION BATTERY: Obesity was assessed by body mass index (BMI) and also by truncal fat mas via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Frailty was assessed using the Physical Performance Test. Results A significant linear regression model for cognition revealed frailty as the strongest predictor, followed by sex, and then truncal fat (R-2=0.340, p<0.001). Conclusion Cognition among community-dwelling older adults with obese BMI may worsen with greater truncal fat mass. Frailty appears to be an important predictor of cognitive performance in this population.

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