ArticleJMIR aging2025
Comparison of 3 Aging Metrics in Dual Declines to Capture All-Cause Dementia and Mortality Risk: Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The utility of aging metrics that incorporate cognitive and physical function is not fully understood. Objective: We aim to compare the predictive capacities of 3 distinct aging metrics-motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS), and cognitive frailty (CF)-for incident dementia and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We used longitudinal data from waves 10-15 of the Health and Retirement Study. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was employed to evaluate the effects of MCR, PCDS, and CF on incident all-cause dementia and mortality, controlling for socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, as well as medical comorbidities. Discrimination analysis was conducted to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of the 3 aging metrics. Results: A total of 2367 older individuals aged 65 years and older, with no baseline prevalence of dementia or disability, were ultimately included. The prevalence rates of MCR, PCDS, and CF were 5.4%, 6.3%, and 1.3%, respectively. Over a decade-long follow-up period, 341 cases of dementia and 573 deaths were recorded. All 3 metrics were predictive of incident all-cause dementia and mortality when adjusting for multiple confounders, with variations in the strength of their associations (incident dementia: MCR odds ratio [OR] 1.90, 95% CI 1.30-2.78; CF 5.06, 95% CI 2.87-8.92; PCDS 3.35, 95% CI 2.44-4.58; mortality: MCR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17-2.19; CF 3.26, 95% CI 1.99-5.33; and PCDS 1.58, 95% CI 1.17-2.13). The C-index indicated that PCDS and MCR had the highest discriminatory accuracy for all-cause dementia and mortality, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the inherent differences among the aging metrics that integrate cognitive and physical functions, they consistently identified risks of dementia and mortality. This underscores the importance of implementing targeted preventive strategies and intervention programs based on these metrics to enhance the overall quality of life and reduce premature deaths in aging populations.
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.