Search

Background: Education and occupational complexity are main sources of mental engagement during early life and adulthood respectively, but research findings are not conclusive regarding protective effects of these factors against late-life dementia.Objective: This project aimed to examine the unique contributions of education and occupational complexity to incident dementia, and to assess the mediating effects of occupational complexity on the association between education and dementia across diverse cohorts.Method: We used data from 10,195 participants (median baseline age = 74.1, range = 58∼103), representing 9 international datasets from 6 countries over 4 continents. Using a coordinated analysis approach, the accelerated failure time model was applied to each dataset, followed by meta-analysis. In addition, causal mediation analyses were performed.Result: The meta-analytic results indicated that both education and occupational complexity were independently associated with increased dementia-free survival time, with 28%of the effect of education mediated by occupational complexity. There was evidence of threshold effects for education, with increased dementia-free survival time associated with 'high school completion' or 'above high school' compared to 'middle school completion or below'.Conclusion: Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. Education and occupational experiences occur during early life and adulthood respectively, and dementia prevention efforts could thus be made at different stages of the life course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a previous report, we used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify natural subgroups of older adults in the Einstein Aging Study (EAS) based on neuropsychological performance. These subgroups differed in demographics, genetic profile, and prognosis. Herein, we assess the generalizability of these findings to an independent sample, the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP), which used an overlapping, but distinct neuropsychological battery.Objective: Our aim was to identify the association of natural subgroups based on neuropsychological performance in the MAP cohort with incident dementia and compare them with the associations identified in the EAS.Methods: MAP is a community-dwelling cohort of older adults living in the northeastern Illinois, Chicago. Latent class models were applied to baseline scores of 10 neuropsychological measures across 1,662 dementia-free MAP participants. Results were compared to prior findings from the EAS.Results: LCA resulted in a 5-class model: Mixed-Domain Impairment (n = 71, 4.3%), Memory-specific-Impairment (n = 274, 16.5%), Average (n = 767, 46.1%), Frontal Impairment (n = 222, 13.4%), and a class of Superior Cognition (n = 328, 19.7%). Similar to the EAS, the Mixed-Domain Impairment, the Memory-Specific Impairment, and the Frontal Impairment classes had higher risk of incident Alzheimer's disease when compared to the Average class. By contrast, the Superior Cognition had a lower risk of Alzheimer's disease when compared to the Average class.Conclusions: Natural cognitive subgroups in MAP are similar to those identified in EAS. These similarities, despite study differences in geography, sampling strategy, and cognitive tests, suggest that LCA is capable of identifying classes that are not limited to a single sample or a set of cognitive tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. Little is known, however, about the key features of self-report measures currently used to assess SCD. The Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) Working Group is an international consortium established to develop a conceptual framework and research criteria for SCD (Jessen et al., 2014, Alzheimers Dement 10, 844-852). In the current study we systematically compared cognitive self-report items used by 19 SCD-I Working Group studies, representing 8 countries and 5 languages. We identified 34 self-report measures comprising 640 cognitive self-report items. There was little overlap among measures- approximately 75% of measures were used by only one study. Wide variation existed in response options and item content. Items pertaining to the memory domain predominated, accounting for about 60% of items surveyed, followed by executive function and attention, with 16% and 11% of the items, respectively. Items relating to memory for the names of people and the placement of common objects were represented on the greatest percentage of measures (56% each). Working group members reported that instrument selection decisions were often based on practical considerations beyond the study of SCD specifically, such as availability and brevity of measures. Results document the heterogeneity of approaches across studies to the emerging construct of SCD. We offer preliminary recommendations for instrument selection and future research directions including identifying items and measure formats associated with important clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]