Lindsay R Pool1, Jennifer Weuve2, Robert S Wilson2, Ute Bültmann2, Denis A Evans2, Carlos F Mendes de Leon2. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology (L.R.P., C.F.M.d.L.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Department of Internal Medicine (J.W., D.A.E.), Rush Institute for Healthy Aging (J.W., D.A.E.), Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center (R.S.W.), and Departments of Neurological Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (R.S.W.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine (U.B.), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. lpool@umich.edu. 2. From the Department of Epidemiology (L.R.P., C.F.M.d.L.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Department of Internal Medicine (J.W., D.A.E.), Rush Institute for Healthy Aging (J.W., D.A.E.), Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center (R.S.W.), and Departments of Neurological Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (R.S.W.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine (U.B.), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether occupational cognitive requirements, as a marker of adulthood cognitive activity, are associated with late-life cognition and cognitive decline. METHODS: Main lifetime occupation information for 7,637 participants aged >65 years of the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP) was linked with standardized data on worker attributes and job characteristics from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Ratings of cognitive processes required in 10 work-related tasks were used to create a summary measure of occupational cognitive requirements (possible range 0-7). Multivariable-adjusted linear mixed models were used to estimate the association of occupational cognitive requirements score (OCRS) with cognitive function and rate of cognitive decline. RESULTS: Higher OCRS corresponded to significantly better late-life cognitive performance at baseline in 1993 (p < 0.001) and to slower decline in global cognitive function over time (p = 0.004). Within a genotyped subsample (n = 4,104), the associations of OCRS with rate of cognitive decline did not differ significantly by APOE ε4 carriership (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that occupational cognitive requirements are associated with better cognition and a slower rate of cognitive decline in older age. Adulthood cognitive activity may contribute to cognitive reserve in late life.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether occupational cognitive requirements, as a marker of adulthood cognitive activity, are associated with late-life cognition and cognitive decline. METHODS: Main lifetime occupation information for 7,637 participants aged >65 years of the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP) was linked with standardized data on worker attributes and job characteristics from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Ratings of cognitive processes required in 10 work-related tasks were used to create a summary measure of occupational cognitive requirements (possible range 0-7). Multivariable-adjusted linear mixed models were used to estimate the association of occupational cognitive requirements score (OCRS) with cognitive function and rate of cognitive decline. RESULTS: Higher OCRS corresponded to significantly better late-life cognitive performance at baseline in 1993 (p < 0.001) and to slower decline in global cognitive function over time (p = 0.004). Within a genotyped subsample (n = 4,104), the associations of OCRS with rate of cognitive decline did not differ significantly by APOE ε4 carriership (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that occupational cognitive requirements are associated with better cognition and a slower rate of cognitive decline in older age. Adulthood cognitive activity may contribute to cognitive reserve in late life.
Authors: A H Mohammed; S W Zhu; S Darmopil; J Hjerling-Leffler; P Ernfors; B Winblad; M C Diamond; P S Eriksson; N Bogdanovic Journal: Prog Brain Res Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.453
Authors: Archana Singh-Manoux; Michael G Marmot; Maria Glymour; Séverine Sabia; Mika Kivimäki; Aline Dugravot Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Sean A P Clouston; Diana Kuh; Pamela Herd; Jane Elliott; Marcus Richards; Scott M Hofer Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-28 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Kaori Fujishiro; Leslie A MacDonald; Michael Crowe; Leslie A McClure; Virginia J Howard; Virginia G Wadley Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Tatjana Rundek; Hannah Gardener; Anita Seixas Dias Saporta; David A Loewenstein; Ranjan Duara; Clinton B Wright; Chuanhui Dong; Bonnie Levin; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Robert S Wilson; Lei Yu; Melissa Lamar; Julie A Schneider; Patricia A Boyle; David A Bennett Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Eoin McElroy; Marcus Richards; Emla Fitzsimons; Gabriella Conti; George B Ploubidis; Alice Sullivan; Vanessa Moulton Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; Taylor M Mobley; Robert E Weiss; Audrey R Murchland; Lisa F Berkman; Erika L Sabbath Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910