BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported that slower gait speed might predict cognitive impairment and dementing illnesses, supporting the role of gait speed as a possible subclinical marker of cognitive impairment. However, the predictive value of other gait parameters for cognitive decline is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the association with, and prediction of, specific gait parameters for cognition in a population-based sample. METHODS: The analysis included 3,426 cognitively normal participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. At baseline and every 15 months (mean follow-up = 1.93 years), participants had a study coordinator evaluation, neurological examination, and a neuropsychological assessment using nine tests that covered four domains. Gait parameters were assessed with the GAITRite® instrument. General linear mixed effects models were used to compute the annualized rate of change in cognitive domain z-scores, controlling for age, sex, education, depression, comorbidities, body mass index, APOE ɛ4 allele, and visit number, and excluding individuals with a history of stroke, alcoholism, Parkinson's disease, subdural hematoma, and normal pressure hydrocephalus. RESULTS: Spatial (stride length), temporal (ambulatory time, gait speed, step count, cadence, double support time), and spatiotemporal (cadence) gait parameters, and greater intraindividual variability in stride length, swing time, and stance time were associated with a significant decline in global cognition and in specific domains including memory, executive function, visuospatial, and language. CONCLUSIONS: Spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal measures of gait and greater variability of gait parameters were associated with and predictive of both global- and domain-specific cognitive decline.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported that slower gait speed might predict cognitive impairment and dementing illnesses, supporting the role of gait speed as a possible subclinical marker of cognitive impairment. However, the predictive value of other gait parameters for cognitive decline is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the association with, and prediction of, specific gait parameters for cognition in a population-based sample. METHODS: The analysis included 3,426 cognitively normal participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. At baseline and every 15 months (mean follow-up = 1.93 years), participants had a study coordinator evaluation, neurological examination, and a neuropsychological assessment using nine tests that covered four domains. Gait parameters were assessed with the GAITRite® instrument. General linear mixed effects models were used to compute the annualized rate of change in cognitive domain z-scores, controlling for age, sex, education, depression, comorbidities, body mass index, APOE ɛ4 allele, and visit number, and excluding individuals with a history of stroke, alcoholism, Parkinson's disease, subdural hematoma, and normal pressure hydrocephalus. RESULTS: Spatial (stride length), temporal (ambulatory time, gait speed, step count, cadence, double support time), and spatiotemporal (cadence) gait parameters, and greater intraindividual variability in stride length, swing time, and stance time were associated with a significant decline in global cognition and in specific domains including memory, executive function, visuospatial, and language. CONCLUSIONS: Spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal measures of gait and greater variability of gait parameters were associated with and predictive of both global- and domain-specific cognitive decline.
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Azizah J Jor'dan; Brad Manor; Ikechukwu Iloputaife; Daniel A Habtemariam; Jonathan F Bean; Farzaneh A Sorond; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Alexandra M V Wennberg; Timothy G Lesnick; Christopher G Schwarz; Rodolfo Savica; Clinton E Hagen; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; John H Hollman; Prashanthi Vemuri; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Hans Wouters; Jos P Van Campen; Marloes J Kuitert; Lisette Kikkert; Sarah N Hilmer; Katja Taxis; Helene G Van der Meer; Claudine J C Lamoth Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Farwa Ali; Stacy R Loushin; Hugo Botha; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell; Kenton Kaufman Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Alexandra M V Wennberg; Clinton E Hagen; Mary M Machulda; John H Hollman; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Michelle M Mielke; Jeremy A Syrjanen; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Ingmar Skoog; Prashanthi Vemuri; Mary M Machulda; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Silke Kern Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Melanie J Koren; Helena M Blumen; Emmeline I Ayers; Joe Verghese; Matthew K Abramowitz Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kevin J Sullivan; Radhikesh Ranadive; Dan Su; Blake R Neyland; Timothy M Hughes; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Samuel N Lockhart; Dean F Wong; Clifford R Jack; Rebecca F Gottesman; Thomas H Mosley; Michael E Griswold; B Gwen Windham Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.224