ArticleJAMA network open2026
Domain-Specific Cognitive Concordance in Older Married Couples.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Spousal similarity in late-life cognition has been reported, but whether concordance differs across cognitive domains remains unclear. Objective: To examine whether cognitive concordance among older married couples is domain specific by comparing real couples with demographically and genetically matched control pairs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, multicenter, community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2019 to December 2020 and included married couples from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Aging and Dementia. Each spouse was individually matched to an unrelated control based on sex, cognitive diagnosis, apolipoprotein E ε4 status, age, and education. Data were analyzed from March to April 2026. Exposure: Marital pairing within a 4-group matched design (real couples, spouse-control pairs, and matched null couples). Main Outcomes and Measures: For 9 subtests from the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer Disease Assessment Packet, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated within each group, and the spousal concordance (ICC difference) was defined as the difference between the ICC of real couples and that of matched null couples. Significance was assessed with 2-sided permutation tests and Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction. Results: The sample included 783 married couples (1566 individuals; 783 [50.0%] female and 783 [50.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 74.0 [5.5] years) and 783 matched control couples. Among the 783 married couples, 4 of 9 subtests showed significant ICC differences after false discovery rate correction in unadjusted analyses: Verbal Fluency (ICC difference, 0.232; 95% CI, 0.138-0.324), Constructional Praxis (ICC difference, 0.145; 95% CI, 0.039-0.252), Boston Naming Test (ICC difference, 0.134; 95% CI, 0.038-0.231), and Constructional Recall (ICC difference, 0.110; 95% CI, 0.017-0.200); all remained significant after covariate adjustment. In contrast, the Mini-Mental State Examination and verbal memory recall and recognition showed little concordance beyond demographically matched null pairs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 783 older married couples, spousal cognitive concordance was domain specific, with the greatest effect size estimates in language and visuospatial function rather than global cognition. These findings suggest that spousal cognitive similarity may be missed when analyses rely only on global screening measures, highlighting the need for longitudinal study of within-couple concordance.
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.