Natascha Merten1, A Alex Pinto2, Adam J Paulsen2, Yanjun Chen2, Carla R Schubert2, Karen J Cruickshanks3. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA; Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA; Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address: natascha.merten@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding generational trends in dementia and cognitive decline is essential to quantify future healthcare needs and may help identify interventions and preventions. We aimed to determine whether individuals from more recent generations showed better neurocognitive function. METHODS: This cross-sectional study combined data from 4439 participants (mean age 64 years (SD = 13); 57% were women) from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study and Beaver Dam Offspring Study. We assessed participants' birth cohort (1901-1924, Greatest Generation; 1925-1945, Silent Generation; 1946-1964, Baby Boom Generation; 1965-1984, Generation X) and neurocognition (Trail-Making Tests A and B, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Verbal Fluency Test). Multivariable linear regression models were utilized. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, sex, education, and known risk factors for cognitive decline, more recent generations showed better processing speed, executive function, attention, and verbal fluency than the Greatest Generation. Largest benefits were found in the Baby Boom Generation. Compared with the Greatest Generation, individuals from the Baby Boom Generation performed better on Trail-Making Tests A (-0.21 ln(time in s); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29, -0.13) and B (-0.31 ln(time in s); 95% CI -0.40, -0.22), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (6.07 numbers correct; 95% CI 3.61, 8.52) and Verbal Fluency Test (8.75 numbers correct; 95% CI 5.07, 12.42 in women; 5.28 numbers correct; 95% CI 0.79, 9.78 in men), with effect sizes similar to effects of 11-15 years of less aging. CONCLUSIONS: This indicates that some benefits of younger generations might be related to yet unknown and potentially modifiable environmental, health-related or lifestyle factors and motivates research of such underlying factors to promote healthy cognitive aging.
BACKGROUND: Understanding generational trends in dementia and cognitive decline is essential to quantify future healthcare needs and may help identify interventions and preventions. We aimed to determine whether individuals from more recent generations showed better neurocognitive function. METHODS: This cross-sectional study combined data from 4439 participants (mean age 64 years (SD = 13); 57% were women) from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study and Beaver Dam Offspring Study. We assessed participants' birth cohort (1901-1924, Greatest Generation; 1925-1945, Silent Generation; 1946-1964, Baby Boom Generation; 1965-1984, Generation X) and neurocognition (Trail-Making Tests A and B, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Verbal Fluency Test). Multivariable linear regression models were utilized. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, sex, education, and known risk factors for cognitive decline, more recent generations showed better processing speed, executive function, attention, and verbal fluency than the Greatest Generation. Largest benefits were found in the Baby Boom Generation. Compared with the Greatest Generation, individuals from the Baby Boom Generation performed better on Trail-Making Tests A (-0.21 ln(time in s); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29, -0.13) and B (-0.31 ln(time in s); 95% CI -0.40, -0.22), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (6.07 numbers correct; 95% CI 3.61, 8.52) and Verbal Fluency Test (8.75 numbers correct; 95% CI 5.07, 12.42 in women; 5.28 numbers correct; 95% CI 0.79, 9.78 in men), with effect sizes similar to effects of 11-15 years of less aging. CONCLUSIONS: This indicates that some benefits of younger generations might be related to yet unknown and potentially modifiable environmental, health-related or lifestyle factors and motivates research of such underlying factors to promote healthy cognitive aging.
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Leslie M Shaw; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Timothy G Lesnick; Vernon S Pankratz; Michael C Donohue; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Kenneth M Langa; Eric B Larson; Eileen M Crimmins; Jessica D Faul; Deborah A Levine; Mohammed U Kabeto; David R Weir Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: HwaJung Choi; Robert F Schoeni; Linda G Martin; Kenneth M Langa Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Brenda C Spillman; Brenda L Plassman Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Hugo J Aparicio; Jayandra J Himali; Claudia L Satizabal; Matthew P Pase; Jose R Romero; Carlos S Kase; Alexa S Beiser; Sudha Seshadri Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kaare Christensen; Mikael Thinggaard; Anna Oksuzyan; Troels Steenstrup; Karen Andersen-Ranberg; Bernard Jeune; Matt McGue; James W Vaupel Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 79.321