ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022
Association of baseline level of cardiovascular risk burden and its temporal changes with cognitive decline.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular disease risk models and dementia or cognitive decline: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Previous studies on cardiovascular risk burden assessed by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS) and cognitive trajectories mainly focus on Western populations and most of them have used a single measure of cardiovascular risk. In this study, among middle-aged and older Chinese, we investigated (i) the association of baseline FGCRS with subsequent cognitive decline and (ii) the association of FGCRS change with concomitant cognitive decline. Materials and methods: In wave 1 to wave 4 (2011-2018) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, global cognition was assessed by orientation, memory, and executive function. FGCRS was assessed and categorized into tertiles (low, intermediate, and high) at baseline (2011) and 4 years after (2015). Furthermore, external validation was performed to check its generalizability using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) 2008-2018. Results: In total, 6,402 participants with a mean [standard deviation (SD) age of 57.8 (8.4) years, 49.0% women] with complete baseline data and at least one reassessment of cognitive function were included. A 10% increment in baseline FGCRS was associated with a faster decline in global cognition (-0.010 SD/year, 95% CI -0.013, -0.008). Among 4,336 participants [mean (SD) age of 57.8 (8.2) years, 50.0% women] with data on FGCRS changes, compared to individuals with the consistently low FGCRS (reference group), a faster global cognition decline rate was observed in the low to intermediate group (-0.026 SD/year, 95% CI -0.045, -0.007), the low to high group (-0.052 SD/year, 95% CI -0.102, -0.001), the consistently intermediate group (-0.019 SD/year, 95% CI -0.033, -0.005), the intermediate to high group (-0.040 SD/year, 95% CI -0.058, -0.022), the high to intermediate group (-0.024 SD/year, 95% CI -0.047, -0.002), and the consistently high group (-0.047 SD/year, 95% CI -0.060, -0.034). Similar trends were observed for individual cognitive domains. Results from the external validation using the ELSA remained consistent. Conclusion: Higher baseline FGCRS was associated with faster cognitive decline. However, there was no consistent relationship between the direction of changes in FGCRS and cognitive decline.
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.