Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35333361›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Association of Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Measures With Cognition and Dementia Risk in Australian Adults.

Matthew P Pase, Ella Rowsthorn, Marina G Cavuoto, Alexandra Lavale, Nawaf Yassi, Paul Maruff, Rachel F Buckley, Yen Ying Lim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Individual and neighborhood socioeconomic inequality and the risk of dementia: A 14-year follow-up study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cognitive impairment and contexts: examining the intersections of social activity participation and neighborhood perceptions.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with multiple cognitive domains in a community sample of older adults.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew P PaseTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Ella RowsthornTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Marina G CavuotoTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Alexandra LavaleTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Nawaf YassiDepartment of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre at The Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Paul MaruffTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Rachel F BuckleyMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Yen Ying LimTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Monash University · AUBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Up to 40% of dementia cases are potentially preventable; therefore, it is important to identify high-risk groups to whom resources could be targeted for maximal impact in preventing late-life dementia. The association of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) with cognition and dementia risk is not well known, particularly in midlife when late-life dementia may still be preventable through established interventions, such as blood pressure management. Objective: To examine whether neighborhood-level SES is associated with differences in cognitive performance and dementia risk scores. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected between November 17, 2016, and April 14, 2020, from 4656 participants in the longitudinal population-based Healthy Brain Project cohort. This large online cohort comprised community-dwelling individuals geographically dispersed across Australia. Participants were aged 40 to 70 years without dementia or other major neurological conditions. Exposures: Neighborhood-level SES was computed by matching participants' residential addresses to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD). Postcodes provided by each participant were used to derive an IRSAD score that ranked participants according to deciles of neighborhood-level SES (range, 1-10, with higher deciles indicating greater socioeconomic advantage); neighborhoods in deciles 1 to 7 were considered to have low or intermediate SES, and neighborhoods in deciles 8 to 10 were considered to have high SES. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dementia risk estimated using the dementia risk score from the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE) tool (n = 4656) and cognitive composite scores for memory and attention measured by the Cogstate Brief Battery (n = 2181). Results: Of 4656 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [7.2] years; 3445 women [74.0%]), 2688 individuals (57.7%) lived in areas with high neighborhood-level SES (IRSAD decile ≥8), and 1968 (42.3%) lived in areas with low or intermediate neighborhood-level SES (IRSAD decile <8), with 1263 individuals (27.1%) residing in rural or regional areas. A total of 6 participants (0.1%) identified as African, 121 (2.6%) as Asian, 57 (1.2%) as Indigenous Australian, 24 (0.5%) as Latin American, 9 (0.2%) as Pacific Islander, 3671 (78.8%) as White or European, and 768 (16.5%) indicated other race (not specified). Each decile unit increase in neighborhood-level SES was associated with a lower CAIDE dementia risk score after adjustment for race and rurality (β [SE] = -0.070 [0.019]; P = .004). Each decile unit increase was also associated with better memory (β [SE] = 0.022 [0.006]; P = .006) but not with better attention (β [SE] = 0.009 [0.007]; P = .34), as measured by Cogstate Brief Battery composite z scores after adjustment for age, sex, race, years of education, and rurality. When comparing memory performance between individuals with IRSAD scores higher and lower than decile 8, neighborhood-level SES interacted with age (F1-2171 = 6.33; P = .02) and CAIDE dementia risk scores (F1-2173 = 4.02; P = .08). Differences in memory between neighborhood-level SES categories were larger among participants who were older and had a higher risk of dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, higher neighborhood-level SES was associated with better memory and lower dementia risk scores. These results suggest that efforts to lower dementia risk factors in disadvantaged areas are needed to curtail the increasing burden of dementia and that inclusion of individuals living in areas with lower SES in research on dementia is warranted to improve understanding and potential interventions.

Indexed as

DementiaAdultAustraliaCognitionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID35333361
PMCPMC8956972
OpenAlexW4220884035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.