Cognitive trajectories: exploring the predictive role of subjective cognitive decline and awareness of age-related changes for cognitive functioning.

Background: We investigated whether aspects of subjective cognitive aging, including awareness of age-related gains and losses in cognition (AARC-gains, AARC-losses) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD), predict change in objective cognitive function as measured by verbal reasoning (VR) and working memory (WM).
Methods: We used longitudinal data for 3,299 cognitively healthy UK residents aged 65+. We used data on AARC and SCD assessed in 2019, and cognitive tasks assessed in 2019, 2020, and 2021. We used latent growth curve modeling, latent class growth analysis, and growth mixture modeling.
Results: For VR, multiple growth trajectories were not evident. Mean VR at baseline was 37.45; this remained stable over time. Higher AARC-gains in cognition (mean intercept = -0.23; 95%CI: -0.31; -0.16), higher AARC-losses in cognition (mean intercept = -0.37; 95%CI: -0.46; -0.28), and lower SCD (mean intercept = 2.92; 95%CI: 2.58; 3.58) were associated with poorer VR at baseline. A three-class growth mixture model-class varying best represented trajectories of WM. In Class 1 ( N  = 182) mean WM at baseline was 31.20; this decreased by 2.48 points each year. In Class 2 ( N  = 119) mean WM at baseline was 23.12; this increased by 3.28 points each year. In Class 3 ( N  = 2,998) mean WM at baseline was 30.11; and it remained stable. Higher AARC-gains (Odds Ratio = 1.08; 95%CI: 1.03; 1.14) and AARC-losses (Odds Ratio = 1.10; 95%CI: 1.04; 1.16) in cognition predicted greater likelihood of being in Class 2 than Class 3.
Conclusion: Although both higher AARC-gains and AARC-losses indicate poorer concurrent cognition, higher AARC-gains may be a resource that facilitates future cognitive improvement.
Competing Interests: HB was employed by the Ecog Pro Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
(Copyright © 2023 Sabatini, Cosentino, Chapman, Ballard, Brooker, Corbett and Stephan.)