4.0 Article

Olfactory identification and incidence of mild cognitive impairment in older age

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 802-808

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.7.802

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG024480, R01 AG17917, K23 AG23040, R01 AG022018] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is often a precursor to Alzheimer disease, but knowledge about factors that predict its development is limited. Objective: To test the hypothesis that impaired odor identification is related to increased risk of incident MCI. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Academic research. Participants: Subjectswere 589 community- dwelling older persons without cognitive impairment at study baseline, at which time odor identification was assessed using the 12-item Brief Smell IdentificationTest( mean +/- SD score, 9.3 +/- 1.9). Main Outcome Measures: Incidence of MCI and rate of decline in cognitive function. Results: During annual observation of up to 5 years, 177 subjects developed MCI. In a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and education, odor identification score predicted development of MCI (relative risk, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.23), with risk increased by 50% in persons with below-average (score of 8 [25th percentile]) compared with above- average (score of 11 [75th percentile]) odor identification scores. Results were not substantially changed in subsequent analyses that controlled for level of cognitive function or disability, presence of stroke, or smoking status at baseline or that required MCI to persist for at least 1 year. Impaired odor identification was also associated with a lower level of global cognition at baseline and with more rapid decline in episodic memory, semantic memory, and perceptual speed. Conclusion: Among older persons without manifest cognitive impairment, difficulty in identifying odors predicts subsequent development of MCI.

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

4.0
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