Anran Liu1, Zhaowen Sun2, Eric M McDade3, Tiffany F Hughes4, Mary Ganguli5, Chung-Chou H Chang1,6. 1. Departments of Biostatistics. 2. AbbVIE Pharmaceuticals, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 4. Department of Anthropology, Sociology, and Gerontology, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH. 5. Psychiatry, Neurology, and Epidemiology. 6. Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Linear models cannot capture nonlinear associations when the relationships between cognition and risk factors vary across risk levels. We demonstrate a method of modelling nonlinear associations using the example of blood pressure (BP) and memory. METHODS: We measured memory and BP (in mm Hg) annually for 10 years in a population-based cohort (N=1982) aged 65+. We evaluated the relationship between BP and memory at the same time points using both linear mixed models and generalized additive mixed models with smoothing splines, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Linear mixed models found no significant associations. Generalized additive mixed models detected different associations between BP and memory across baseline BP categories (normotensive, hypertensive, hypotensive). Among normotensives, systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) around 140/80 was associated with the highest, while SBP/DBP around 110/60 was associated with the lowest, predicted memory scores. Among hypertensives, SBP/DBP around 130/85 was associated with the highest, while SBP/DBP around 150/65 was associated with the lowest, predicted memory scores. Among hypotensives, no significant association was found. Among both normotensives and hypertensives, a DBP >75 was associated with better memory. CONCLUSIONS: By modelling nonlinear associations, we showed that the relationship between BP and memory performance varied by baseline BP among normotensives and hypertensives.
BACKGROUND: Linear models cannot capture nonlinear associations when the relationships between cognition and risk factors vary across risk levels. We demonstrate a method of modelling nonlinear associations using the example of blood pressure (BP) and memory. METHODS: We measured memory and BP (in mm Hg) annually for 10 years in a population-based cohort (N=1982) aged 65+. We evaluated the relationship between BP and memory at the same time points using both linear mixed models and generalized additive mixed models with smoothing splines, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Linear mixed models found no significant associations. Generalized additive mixed models detected different associations between BP and memory across baseline BP categories (normotensive, hypertensive, hypotensive). Among normotensives, systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) around 140/80 was associated with the highest, while SBP/DBP around 110/60 was associated with the lowest, predicted memory scores. Among hypertensives, SBP/DBP around 130/85 was associated with the highest, while SBP/DBP around 150/65 was associated with the lowest, predicted memory scores. Among hypotensives, no significant association was found. Among both normotensives and hypertensives, a DBP >75 was associated with better memory. CONCLUSIONS: By modelling nonlinear associations, we showed that the relationship between BP and memory performance varied by baseline BP among normotensives and hypertensives.
Authors: Paul A James; Suzanne Oparil; Barry L Carter; William C Cushman; Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb; Joel Handler; Daniel T Lackland; Michael L LeFevre; Thomas D MacKenzie; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Sidney C Smith; Laura P Svetkey; Sandra J Taler; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson T Wright; Andrew S Narva; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Andreea Rawlings; Ron C Hoogeveen; Christie M Ballantyne; Roger S Blumenthal; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Yue-Bin Lv; Peng-Fei Zhu; Zhao-Xue Yin; Virginia Byers Kraus; Diane Threapleton; Choy-Lye Chei; Melanie Sereny Brasher; Juan Zhang; Han-Zhu Qian; Chen Mao; David Bruce Matchar; Jie-Si Luo; Yi Zeng; Xiao-Ming Shi Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Ilya M Nasrallah; Nicholas M Pajewski; Alexander P Auchus; Gordon Chelune; Alfred K Cheung; Maryjo L Cleveland; Laura H Coker; Michael G Crowe; William C Cushman; Jeffrey A Cutler; Christos Davatzikos; Lisa Desiderio; Jimit Doshi; Guray Erus; Larry J Fine; Sarah A Gaussoin; Darrin Harris; Karen C Johnson; Paul L Kimmel; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Lenore J Launer; Alan J Lerner; Cora E Lewis; Jennifer Martindale-Adams; Claudia S Moy; Linda O Nichols; Suzanne Oparil; Paula K Ogrocki; Mahboob Rahman; Stephen R Rapp; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Bonnie C Sachs; Kaycee M Sink; Carolyn H Still; Mark A Supiano; Joni K Snyder; Virginia G Wadley; Jennifer Walker; Daniel E Weiner; Paul K Whelton; Valerie M Wilson; Nancy Woolard; Jackson T Wright; Clinton B Wright; Jeff D Williamson; R Nick Bryan Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272