4.6 Article

Homocysteine and cognitive performance in the framingham offspring study: Age is important

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 162, 期 7, 页码 644-653

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi259

关键词

aging; cognition; folic acid; homocysteine; memory disorders; risk factors; vitamin B 6; vitamin B 12

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-38038, N01-HC-25195, 5R01-HL67358] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [5R01-AG16495, P30 AG13846, 5R01-AG08122] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [5R01-NS17950, R01 NS017950] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasma total homocysteine (tHcy) concentrations are associated with deficits in cognitive performance in persons free from dementia. The extent to which age modifies these associations is in need of further investigation in large, community-based, prospective studies combining the following elements: 1) multiple cognitive tests; 2) statistical adjustment for the role of the vitamin cofactors folate, vitamin B-6, and vitamin B-12; and 3) adjustment for the presence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Using data collected between 1991 and 2002, the authors investigated the associations between tHcy and multiple measures of cognitive performance in 2,096 dementia- and stroke-free participants of the Framingham Offspring Study, who were stratified into three age groups (40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-82 years), after findings of statistically significant tHcy-by-age interactions for multiple cognitive measures. Regardless of statistical adjustment for age, sex, gender, the vitamin cofactors, and cardiovascular risk factors, statistically significant inverse associations between tHcy and multiple cognitive domains were observed for individuals aged 60 or more years; no such associations were observed for participants aged less than 60 years. Early preventive interventions may be important, because the inverse association between tHcy and cognitive performance is observed beyond middle age.

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