4.6 Article

Cognitive Lifestyle and Long-Term Risk of Dementia and Survival After Diagnosis in a Multicenter Population-based Cohort

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 9, 页码 1004-1012

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq476

关键词

cognitive reserve; dementia; incidence; survival

资金

  1. Department of Health
  2. Medical Research Council [MRC/G9901400, MRC/U.1052.00.013]
  3. National Institute for Health Research Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U105292687, G9901400] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_U105292687, G9901400] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An active cognitive lifestyle has been linked to dementia incidence and survival, but the separate and combined effects of its subcomponents are not clear. Data were derived from the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study, a population-based study of 13,004 individuals in England and Wales first interviewed in 1991-1992 and followed over a 10-year period for dementia incidence and 12 years for mortality. A Cognitive Lifestyle Score (CLS), defined as a composite of cognitive activity including education, occupational complexity, and social engagement, was available for 12,600 individuals in 3 stages of life. A higher CLS was protective of dementia (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.9). Sensitivity analyses found this main effect to be reliable and replicable even when considering just 2 components of the score, either education and occupation or education and late-life social engagement. No single CLS factor was associated with dementia incidence on its own. Survival differences did not reach statistical significance. Our data suggest that more years of education, as well as further stimulatory experiences in either midlife or late life. are necessary for a protective link with dementia incidence. There was little evidence of an effect of cognitive lifestyle on survival after dementia diagnosis.

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