4.5 Article

Plasma IGF-I levels and cognitive performance in older women

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 135-142

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.10.012

关键词

insulin-like growth factors; cognition; aging

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA087969, U01CA049449, R01CA049449] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG015424, R01AG024215] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [CA87969, CA49449] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIA NIH HHS [AG24215, R01 AG24215, AG15424] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIMHD NIH HHS [L32 MD000994-01, L32 MD000994] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Emerging biologic and epidemiologic evidence suggests benefits of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in cognitive aging. Objective: To examine the relation of circulating IGF-I to cognition. Methods: We measured plasma IGF-I and IGF-binding protem-3 (IGFBP-3) in 590 women aged 60-68 years. An average 10 years later, we administered telephone-based tests of general cognition (Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status [TICS]), verbal memory, category fluency, and attention. We estimated multivariable-adjusted mean differences in performance across levels of IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio. Results: On the TICS, each standard deviation (S.D.) increase in molar ratio was significantly associated with better performance: multivariable-adjusted mean difference = 0.2 units, 95% confidence interval (0.0,0.4), p = 0.05. This effect estimate for each S.D. increase in molar ratio was cognitively equivalent to the mean difference we observed on the TICS between women 1 year apart in age. On a global score combining all tests, there was also a trend of better performance with each S.D. increase in molar ratio (p = 0.07). IGF-I levels were not associated with performance in verbal memory. Conclusions: Higher IGF-I levels may be associated with better general cognition. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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