Jack F V Hunt1, William Buckingham2, Alice J Kim3, Jennifer Oh1, Nicholas M Vogt1, Erin M Jonaitis4, Tenah K Hunt5, Megan Zuelsdorff1, Ryan Powell2, Derek Norton1,6, Robert A Rissman7, Sanjay Asthana1,4,8,9, Ozioma C Okonkwo1,4,8,9, Sterling C Johnson1,4,8,9, Amy J H Kind1,2,8,9, Barbara B Bendlin1,4,8,9. 1. Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. 2. Health Services and Care Research Program, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 4. Wisconsin Alzheimer's Institute, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. 5. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 7. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego. 8. Geriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. 9. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, William S. Middleton Hospital Department of Veterans Affairs, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
Importance: Identifying risk factors for brain atrophy during the aging process can help direct new preventive approaches for dementia and cognitive decline. The association of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage with brain volume in this context is not well known. Objective: To test whether neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with decreased brain volume in a cognitively unimpaired population enriched for Alzheimer disease risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study, conducted from January 6, 2010, to January 17, 2019, at an academic research neuroimaging center, used cross-sectional data on 951 participants from 2 large, ongoing cohort studies of Alzheimer disease (Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention and Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center clinical cohort). Participants were cognitively unimpaired based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroup diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease, confirmed through a consensus diagnosis panel. The cohort was enriched for Alzheimer disease risk based on family history of dementia. Statistical analysis was performed from April 3 to September 27, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Area Deprivation Index, a geospatially determined index of neighborhood-level disadvantage, and cardiovascular disease risk indices were calculated for each participant. Linear regression models were fitted to test associations between relative neighborhood-level disadvantage (highest 20% based on state of residence) and hippocampal and total brain tissue volume, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Results: In the primary analysis of 951 participants (637 women [67.0%]; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [8.1] years), living in the 20% most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with 4.1% lower hippocampal volume (β = -317.44; 95% CI, -543.32 to -91.56; P = .006) and 2.0% lower total brain tissue volume (β = -20 959.67; 95% CI, -37 611.92 to -4307.43; P = .01), after controlling for intracranial volume, individual-level educational attainment, age, and sex. Robust propensity score-matched analyses determined that this association was not due to racial/ethnic or demographic characteristics. Cardiovascular risk score, examined in a subsample of 893 participants, mediated this association for total brain tissue but not for hippocampal volume. Conclusions and Relevance: For cognitively unimpaired individuals, living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with significantly lower cerebral volumes, after controlling for maximal premorbid (total intracranial) volume. This finding suggests an association of community socioeconomic context, distinct from individual-level socioeconomic status, with brain volume during aging. Cardiovascular risk mediated this association for total brain tissue volume but not for hippocampal volume, suggesting that neighborhood-level disadvantage may be associated with these 2 outcomes via distinct biological pathways.
Importance: Identifying risk factors for brain atrophy during the aging process can help direct new preventive approaches for dementia and cognitive decline. The association of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage with brain volume in this context is not well known. Objective: To test whether neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with decreased brain volume in a cognitively unimpaired population enriched for Alzheimer disease risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study, conducted from January 6, 2010, to January 17, 2019, at an academic research neuroimaging center, used cross-sectional data on 951 participants from 2 large, ongoing cohort studies of Alzheimer disease (Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention and Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center clinical cohort). Participants were cognitively unimpaired based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroup diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease, confirmed through a consensus diagnosis panel. The cohort was enriched for Alzheimer disease risk based on family history of dementia. Statistical analysis was performed from April 3 to September 27, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Area Deprivation Index, a geospatially determined index of neighborhood-level disadvantage, and cardiovascular disease risk indices were calculated for each participant. Linear regression models were fitted to test associations between relative neighborhood-level disadvantage (highest 20% based on state of residence) and hippocampal and total brain tissue volume, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Results: In the primary analysis of 951 participants (637 women [67.0%]; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [8.1] years), living in the 20% most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with 4.1% lower hippocampal volume (β = -317.44; 95% CI, -543.32 to -91.56; P = .006) and 2.0% lower total brain tissue volume (β = -20 959.67; 95% CI, -37 611.92 to -4307.43; P = .01), after controlling for intracranial volume, individual-level educational attainment, age, and sex. Robust propensity score-matched analyses determined that this association was not due to racial/ethnic or demographic characteristics. Cardiovascular risk score, examined in a subsample of 893 participants, mediated this association for total brain tissue but not for hippocampal volume. Conclusions and Relevance: For cognitively unimpaired individuals, living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with significantly lower cerebral volumes, after controlling for maximal premorbid (total intracranial) volume. This finding suggests an association of community socioeconomic context, distinct from individual-level socioeconomic status, with brain volume during aging. Cardiovascular risk mediated this association for total brain tissue volume but not for hippocampal volume, suggesting that neighborhood-level disadvantage may be associated with these 2 outcomes via distinct biological pathways.
Authors: Amy J H Kind; Steve Jencks; Jane Brock; Menggang Yu; Christie Bartels; William Ehlenbach; Caprice Greenberg; Maureen Smith Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jerome N Rachele; Anne Kavanagh; Wendy J Brown; Aislinn M Healy; Christina J Schmid; Gavin Turrell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Sterling C Johnson; Rebecca L Koscik; Erin M Jonaitis; Lindsay R Clark; Kimberly D Mueller; Sara E Berman; Barbara B Bendlin; Corinne D Engelman; Ozioma C Okonkwo; Kirk J Hogan; Sanjay Asthana; Cynthia M Carlsson; Bruce P Hermann; Mark A Sager Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2017-12-08
Authors: Alison D Murray; Christopher J McNeil; Sima Salarirad; Lawrence J Whalley; Roger T Staff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christian Lambert; Eva Zeestraten; Owen Williams; Philip Benjamin; Andrew J Lawrence; Robin G Morris; Andrew D Mackinnon; Thomas R Barrick; Hugh S Markus Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Bruce P Hermann; Aaron F Struck; Robyn M Busch; Anny Reyes; Erik Kaestner; Carrie R McDonald Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 44.711
Authors: Benson S Ku; Katrina Aberizk; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Ricardo E Carrión; Michael T Compton; Barbara A Cornblatt; Benjamin G Druss; Daniel H Mathalon; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Scott W Woods; Elaine F Walker Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Mackenzie E Fowler; Nicole C Wright; Kristen Triebel; Gabrielle B Rocque; Marguerite R Irvin; Richard E Kennedy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Franchesca Arias; Fan Chen; Tamara G Fong; Haley Shiff; Margarita Alegria; Edward R Marcantonio; Yun Gou; Richard N Jones; Thomas G Travison; Eva M Schmitt; Amy J H Kind; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jack F V Hunt; Nicholas M Vogt; Erin M Jonaitis; William R Buckingham; Rebecca L Koscik; Megan Zuelsdorff; Lindsay R Clark; Carey E Gleason; Menggang Yu; Ozioma Okonkwo; Sterling C Johnson; Sanjay Asthana; Barbara B Bendlin; Amy J H Kind Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Jared J Tanner; Shivani Hanchate; Catherine C Price; Cynthia Garvan; Song Lai; Roland Staud; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Georg Deutsch; Burel R Goodin; Roger B Fillingim; Kimberly T Sibille Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Willa D Brenowitz; Oanh L Meyer; Serena Hoermann; John Renne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.390