| Literature DB >> 32895386 |
Michele Veldsman1,2, Xin-You Tai3,4, Thomas Nichols5, Steve Smith6,3, João Peixoto7, Sanjay Manohar7,3,4, Masud Husain6,7,3,4.
Abstract
Healthy cognitive ageing is a societal and public health priority. Cerebrovascular risk factors increase the likelihood of dementia in older people but their impact on cognitive ageing in younger, healthy brains is less clear. The UK Biobank provides cognition and brain imaging measures in the largest population cohort studied to date. Here we show that cognitive abilities of healthy individuals (N = 22,059) in this sample are detrimentally affected by cerebrovascular risk factors. Structural equation modelling revealed that cerebrovascular risk is associated with reduced cerebral grey matter and white matter integrity within a fronto-parietal brain network underlying executive function. Notably, higher systolic blood pressure was associated with worse executive cognitive function in mid-life (44-69 years), but not in late-life (>70 years). During mid-life this association did not occur in the systolic range of 110-140 mmHg. These findings suggest cerebrovascular risk factors impact on brain structure and cognitive function in healthy people.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32895386 PMCID: PMC7477206 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18201-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Population characteristics and multi-modal imaging of 22,059 healthy ageing adults.
Multi-modal imaging—a estimation of white matter hyperintensity load, b measures of white matter integrity and c grey matter volume in the frontoparietal network. d Population characteristics—including mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure in mmHg (standard deviation). These characteristics are used to derive a total cerebrovascular burden risk score. APOE apolipoprotein E; BP blood pressure.
Cerebrovascular risk predictors of executive function.
| Variable | Unstandardised beta estimate | Standard Error | Standardised beta estimate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.86 | 0.06 | 45.66 | 0.0001 | |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.003 | 0.50 | 0.616 |
| Smoking status | −0.03 | 0.01 | −0.02 | −2.92 | 0.004 |
| Medicated cholesterol | −0.03 | 0.01 | −0.02 | −2.42 | 0.016 |
| Medicated hypertension | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.04 | −5.66 | 0.0001 |
| Diabetic | −0.09 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −4.05 | 0.0001 |
| −0.04 | 0.01 | −0.02 | −3.60 | 0.0003 | |
| Age at assessment | −0.06 | 0.001 | −0.57 | −81.99 | 0.0001 |
| Socio-economic status | −0.01 | 0.002 | −0.03 | −3.86 | 0.0001 |
Multiple regression of cerebrovascular variables on executive function latent variable. Socio-economic status indexed by the Townsend Deprivation Index.
APOE apolipoprotein E.
Fig. 2Relationship between blood pressure and executive function.
a Higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) was associated with lower executive function (EF) for both participants who were on antihypertensives and those who were not. For those on antihypertensives, there was a non-linear relationship as EF was not associated with a decline for SBP measurements <140 mmHg (EF standardised into z-score, a–c, f: shaded area represents standard error around the mean. b, c SBP increased with age, while EF declines with age, respectively, for participants who take antihypertensives and those who do not. d, e Association between EF and SBP using age residuals (adjusting for age) for participants who were not on antihypertensive medication (Pearson correlation, r = –0.155, 95% CI [−0.172, −0.139], p < 0.001, n = 16,410) and participants who are (r = −0.093, 95% CI [−0.126, −0.060], p < 0.001, n = 4699) with the difference between correlation coefficients being significant following Fisher’s r to z transformation, z = −3.84, p < 0.001). f When considering age groups, higher SBP was associated with lower EF in mid-life (44–69 years) participants but not in the late-life (70–73 years) group (shaded area represents standard error). g, h Age-adjusted analysis between SBP and EF for participants not on an antihypertensives (r = −0.134, 95% CI [−0.152, −0.115], p < 0.001, n = 13,242) and those who were on antihypertensives (r = −0.062, 95% CI [−0.100, −0.024], p = 0.001, n = 3071), within the mid-life group (difference between group correlation coefficients, z = −3.62, p < 0.001). I, j Same relationship in the late-life group showing no significant correlation between SBP and executive function regardless of whether they were on antihypertensive medication (r = −0.056, 95% CI [−0.1247, 0.0129], p = 0.110, n = 1869 and r = 0.008, 95% CI [−0.0416, 0.0582], p = 0.743, n = 949). SBP systolic blood pressure; EF executive function; CI confidence interval.
Fig. 3Structural equation model, semi-partial correlation and mediation analysis.
a Full structural model. All figures represent standardised beta coefficients. All paths significant to p < 0.001 except the path between cerebrovascular risk and frontoparietal white matter integrity. Black arrows represent covariances. Green box: indicates the frontoparietal grey matter edges that have been fixed to zero in Model 2 red box: the frontoparietal white matter integrity edges that have been fixed to zero in Model 3. b Model fit indices comparing nested models (green and red boxes). Semi-partial correlation plots showing relationship between c WMH load (z-score) and executive function (z-score) Pearson’s r = −0.20, p < 0.001; d controlling for white matter integrity Pearson’s r = −0.07, p < 0.001 and e controlling for grey matter volume Pearson’s r = −0.02, p < 0.008. f Mediation analysis. Values are standardised beta estimates. Path a: relationship between frontoparietal white matter integrity and frontoparietal grey matter volume. Path b: relationship between executive function and frontoparietal white matter. Path c: direct relationship between frontoparietal grey matter volume and executive function. Figures in brackets show beta estimates for the indirect path in which the relationship between frontoparietal grey matter volume and executive function is mediated by frontoparietal white matter integrity. AG angular gyrus; PrC precuneus; CG cingulate gyrus; SFG superior frontal gyrus; FP frontal pole; MTG middle temporal gyrus; OD orientation dispersion; ICVF intracellular volume fraction; WMH white matter hyperintensity; GM Vol grey matter volume; WMI white matter integrity.