| Literature DB >> 30994856 |
Laiss Bertola1, Rafaela T Ávila1, Maria Aparecida C Bicalho2, Leandro F Malloy-Diniz1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aging studies regularly assume that years of education are a protective factor for baseline cognition. In developing countries with specific sociocultural issues, this relationship may not work as expected, and an unmet need remains for alternative resilience factors. This study aimed to analyze different moderators for the relationship between aging and general cognition that could reflect better protective factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30994856 PMCID: PMC6899367 DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Psychiatry ISSN: 1516-4446 Impact factor: 2.697
Figure 1Moderated path analysis diagram.
Sample characteristics
| Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|
| Age, years | 72.69 (8.25) |
| Education, years | 7.78 (5.50) |
| Dementia Ratting Scale | 131.23 (9.11) |
| Frontal Assessment Battery | 14.22 (2.77) |
| Vocabulary WAIS-III subtest | 30.49 (12.32) |
| Raven’s Progressive Matrices | 22.79 (7.01) |
| Semantic score of the Semantic Memory Battery | 53.02 (8.07) |
|
| |
| Sex (female) | 86 (75.4) |
| Occupation (low-level) | 80 (70.2) |
All cognitive measures are reported as raw scores.
SD = standard deviation.
Min-max: 60-98; Kolmogorov-Smirnov: p = 0.004.
Min-max: 0-26; Kolmogorov-Smirnov: p < 0.001.
Chi-square: p < 0.001.
Moderated path analysis for interactions between age and resilience measures
| Variables | b | SE b | 95%CI | p-value | R2 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | -0.266 | 0.078 | -0.420 | -0.112 | < 0.001 | 14.60 |
| Age | -0.193 | 0.074 | -0.338 | -0.047 | 0.009 | 43.30 |
| Education | 0.561 | 0.078 | 0.409 | 0.714 | < 0.001 | |
| Age × education | -0.002 | 0.012 | -0.024 | 0.021 | 0.891 | |
| Age | -0.143 | 0.056 | -0.254 | -0.032 | 0.011 | 58.80 |
| Intelligence | 3.874 | 0.375 | 3.138 | 4.490 | < 0.001 | |
| Age × intelligence | 0.084 | 0.066 | -0.045 | 0.192 | 0.204 | |
| Age | -0.245 | 0.069 | -0.381 | -0.109 | < 0.001 | 29.4 |
| Occupation | 2.499 | 0.411 | 1.694 | 3.304 | < 0.001 | |
| Age × occupation | 0.060 | 0.058 | -0.053 | 0.174 | 0.300 | |
| Age | -0.245 | 0.084 | -0.410 | -0.081 | 0.003 | 31.30 |
| SEM-R | 0.400 | 0.081 | 0.242 | 0.558 | < 0.001 | |
| Age × SEM-R | -0.023 | 0.008 | -0.040 | -0.006 | 0.007 | |
| Age | -0.213 | 0.058 | -0.327 | -0.099 | < 0.001 | 22.00 |
| SEM-RT | 4.017 | 1.301 | 1.467 | 6.567 | 0.002 | |
| Age × SEM-RT | -0.271 | 0.161 | -0.586 | 0.044 | 0.091 |
95%CI = 95% confidence interval; SEM-R = semantic memory score after controlling for education and processing speed; SEM-RT = semantic score after controlling for all other cognitive domains and education.
Unstandardized coefficients.
Figure 2Moderation effect of measuring residual semantic memory of processing speed and education (semantic memory score after controlling for education and processing speed [SEM-R]) on the effect of age on general cognition. Age and SEM-R were divided into low, medium, and high, respecting one standard deviation (SD) from the mean. The Y-axis reflects the general cognition value estimated according to the interaction.