4.0 Article

Central obesity and the aging brain

期刊

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 1545-1548

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.62.10.1545

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG10220, R01 AG012975, R03 AG033751, AG12975] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK60753, R01 DK060753] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Central adiposity as an indicator of visceral fat is linked to vascular and metabolic factors that in turn are related to cognitive decline and dementia. Objective: To determine whether larger waist-hip ratio (WHR) is associated with structural brain changes that underlie cognitive decline and dementia. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of an epidemiologic cohort study of cognitive and functional decline (Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging). Setting: California Central Valley Participants: A total of 112 individuals selected from an ongoing cohort study of 1789 older Latino individuals. Baseline anthropomorphic measures (WHR) and measurements of fasting blood glucose, cholesterol, and insulin levels and blood pressure were obtained. Main Outcome Measures: Baseline magnetic resonance images were analyzed quantitatively to determine the hippocampal volumes in the right and left hemispheres and rated for the percentage of white matter hyper intensities. Results: Greater WHR (P=.02) and older age (P <.001) were negatively related to hippocampal volumes. The WHR and age were positively related to white matter hyper intensities (P=.02 and P=.001, respectively). A 1-SD increase in WHR was associated with a 0.2-SD decrease in hippocampal volume and a 27% increase in white matter hyperintensities. These relationships were not affected by adjustment for body mass index, total cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, and insulin levels or systolic blood pressure in the models. Conclusion: A larger WHR may be related to neurodegenerative, vascular, or metabolic processes that affect brain structures underlying cognitive decline and dementia.

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