ArticleMaturitas2022
Better cognitive function in younger generations - Insights from two cohort studies of middle-aged to older adults in Wisconsin.
Article in Maturitas, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midlife sensory and motor measures among best predictors in parsimonious models of long-term cognitive decline and incidence of cognitive impairment in aging adults.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Generational Differences in Audiometric and Self-Reported Hearing and Hearing Aid Use.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Effects of adverse childhood health experiences on cognitive function in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: mediating role of depression.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Midlife sensory and motor functions improve long-term predictions of cognitive decline and incidence of cognitive impairment.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding generational trends in dementia and cognitive decline is essential to quantify future healthcare needs and may help identify interventions and preventions. We aimed to determine whether individuals from more recent generations showed better neurocognitive function.
methodsThis cross-sectional study combined data from 4439 participants (mean age 64 years (SD = 13); 57% were women) from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study and Beaver Dam Offspring Study. We assessed participants' birth cohort (1901-1924, Greatest Generation; 1925-1945, Silent Generation; 1946-1964, Baby Boom Generation; 1965-1984, Generation X) and neurocognition (Trail-Making Tests A and B, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Verbal Fluency Test). Multivariable linear regression models were utilized.
resultsAdjusted for age, sex, education, and known risk factors for cognitive decline, more recent generations showed better processing speed, executive function, attention, and verbal fluency than the Greatest Generation. Largest benefits were found in the Baby Boom Generation. Compared with the Greatest Generation, individuals from the Baby Boom Generation performed better on Trail-Making Tests A (-0.21 ln(time in s); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29, -0.13) and B (-0.31 ln(time in s); 95% CI -0.40, -0.22), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (6.07 numbers correct; 95% CI 3.61, 8.52) and Verbal Fluency Test (8.75 numbers correct; 95% CI 5.07, 12.42 in women; 5.28 numbers correct; 95% CI 0.79, 9.78 in men), with effect sizes similar to effects of 11-15 years of less aging.
conclusionsThis indicates that some benefits of younger generations might be related to yet unknown and potentially modifiable environmental, health-related or lifestyle factors and motivates research of such underlying factors to promote healthy cognitive aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.