4.7 Article

Changes in cognitive abilities over a 4-year period are unfavorably affected in elderly diabetic subjects -: Results of the Epidemiology of Vascular Aging Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 366-370

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.2.366

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE- To compare it-year changes in cognitive performance among elderly subjects according to category of fasting blood glucose (FBG) using American Diabetes Association criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- Subjects without any detectable cognitive dysfunction were selected from the Epidemiology of Vascular Aging (EVA) Study, a cohort of community-dwelling people aged 59-71 years at baseline, They were classified into glucose categories (normal, impaired fasting glucose [IFG], or diabetic) based on FBG values or known diabetes. Their cognitive abilities were assessed by a global test (Mini Mental Status Examination [MMSE]) and eight domain-specific tests, and they were reassessed 4 years later. Serious cognitive worsening was defined as a score evolution into the worst 15% of the sample's distribution of score differences (4-year score minus baseline score) for each test. RESULTS- At baseline, age-, sex-. and education-adjusted scores for all cognitive tests except one were similar across glucose categories. After 4 years, diabetic subjects had a lower performance on all tests except the MMSE, with differences reaching statistical significance on four tests. Adjusted odds ratios for serious worsening over 4 years in diabetic subjects, with reference to normal subjects, were >2 for four tests (P < 0.05) and bordering this value for two others (P < 0.09). Further adjustment for blood pressure or potential cognition-affecting substances (alcohol, tobacco, and medications) did not modify these results. CONCLUSIONS- Despite similar high initial cognitive function, diabetic subjects tended to have an unfavorable evolution of cognitive performance over 3 pars compared with subjects who had normal glucose or IFG.

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

4.7
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