Patricia A Boyle1,2, Tianhao Wang1,3, Lei Yu1,3, Robert S Wilson1,2,3, Robert Dawe1,4, Konstantinos Arfanakis1,4,5, Julie A Schneider1,3,6, Todd Beck7, Kumar B Rajan7, Denis Evans7, David A Bennett1,3. 1. Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We identified a "cognitive clock," a novel indicator of brain health that provides person-specific estimates of cognitive age, and tested the hypothesis that cognitive age is a better predictor of brain health than chronological age in two independent datasets. METHODS: The initial analyses were based on 1057 participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project and the Religious Orders Study who began without impairment and underwent cognitive assessments up to 24 years. A shape invariant model characterized the latent pattern of cognitive decline, conceptualized here as the "cognitive clock," and yielded person-specific estimates of cognitive age. Survival analyses examined cognitive versus chronological age for predicting Alzheimer's disease dementia, mild cognitive impairment and mortality, and regression analyses examined associations of cognitive versus chronological age with neuropathology and brain atrophy. Finally, we applied the cognitive clock to an independent validation sample of 2592 participants from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a biracial population-based study, to confirm the predictive utility of cognitive age. RESULTS: The "cognitive clock" showed that cognition remained stable until a cognitive age of about 80, then declined moderately until 90, then declined precipitously. In the initial dataset, cognitive age was a better predictor of dementia, mild cognitive impairment and mortality than chronological age, and was more strongly associated with neuropathology and brain atrophy. Application of the cognitive clock to the independent validation sample provided further support for the utility of cognitive age as a strong prognostic indicator of adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: Cognitive age is a robust prognostic indicator of adverse health outcomes and may serve as a useful biomarker in aging research.
INTRODUCTION: We identified a "cognitive clock," a novel indicator of brain health that provides person-specific estimates of cognitive age, and tested the hypothesis that cognitive age is a better predictor of brain health than chronological age in two independent datasets. METHODS: The initial analyses were based on 1057 participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project and the Religious Orders Study who began without impairment and underwent cognitive assessments up to 24 years. A shape invariant model characterized the latent pattern of cognitive decline, conceptualized here as the "cognitive clock," and yielded person-specific estimates of cognitive age. Survival analyses examined cognitive versus chronological age for predicting Alzheimer's disease dementia, mild cognitive impairment and mortality, and regression analyses examined associations of cognitive versus chronological age with neuropathology and brain atrophy. Finally, we applied the cognitive clock to an independent validation sample of 2592 participants from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a biracial population-based study, to confirm the predictive utility of cognitive age. RESULTS: The "cognitive clock" showed that cognition remained stable until a cognitive age of about 80, then declined moderately until 90, then declined precipitously. In the initial dataset, cognitive age was a better predictor of dementia, mild cognitive impairment and mortality than chronological age, and was more strongly associated with neuropathology and brain atrophy. Application of the cognitive clock to the independent validation sample provided further support for the utility of cognitive age as a strong prognostic indicator of adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: Cognitive age is a robust prognostic indicator of adverse health outcomes and may serve as a useful biomarker in aging research.
Authors: Christopher C Stewart; Lei Yu; Robert S Wilson; David A Bennett; Patricia A Boyle Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Patricia A Boyle; Robert S Wilson; Lei Yu; Alasdair M Barr; William G Honer; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Nico U F Dosenbach; Binyam Nardos; Alexander L Cohen; Damien A Fair; Jonathan D Power; Jessica A Church; Steven M Nelson; Gagan S Wig; Alecia C Vogel; Christina N Lessov-Schlaggar; Kelly Anne Barnes; Joseph W Dubis; Eric Feczko; Rebecca S Coalson; John R Pruett; Deanna M Barch; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar Journal: Science Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman; Patricia A Boyle; Lisa L Barnes; Robert S Wilson; Julie A Schneider Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Lene Christiansen; Adam Lenart; Qihua Tan; James W Vaupel; Abraham Aviv; Matt McGue; Kaare Christensen Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Lei Yu; Patricia A Boyle; Robert J Dawe; David A Bennett; Konstantinos Arfanakis; Julie A Schneider Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 9.910