4.6 Review

Brain aging modulates the neuroprotective effects of estrogen on selective aspects of cognition in women: A critical review

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 88-113

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.08.002

关键词

estrogen; cognitive functioning; postmenopausal women; brain aging; progestins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although there is now a substantial literature on the putative neuroprotective effects of estrogen on cognitive functioning in postmenopausal women, it is replete with inconsistencies. The critical period hypothesis, posited several years ago, attempts to account for the discrepancies in this literature by positing that estrogen treatment (ET) will protect aspects of cognition in older women only when treatment is initiated soon after the menopause. Indeed, evidence from basic neuroscience and from the animal and human literature reviewed herein provides compelling support for the critical period hypothesis. Although it is not known with certainty why estrogen does not protect cognition and may even cause harm when administered to women over the age of 65 years, it is likely that the events that characterize brain aging, such as a reduction in brain volume and in neuronal size, alterations in neurotransmitter systems, and a decrease in dendritic spine numbers, form an unfavorable background that precludes a neuroprotective effects of exogenous estrogen on the brain. Other factors that have likely contributed to the discrepancies in the estrogen-cognition literature include differences in the estrogen compounds used, their route of administration, cyclic versus continuous regimens, and the concomitant use of progestins. This critical analysis attempts to define conditions under which ET may protect aspects of cognition in aging women while also considering the cost/benefit ratio for the treatment of women aged 50-59 years. Suggestions for specific future research questions are also addressed. (c) 2007 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

4.6
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