| Literature DB >> 35893861 |
Ke Jiang1,2,3, Changxiao Xie1,2,3, Zhourong Li1,2,3, Huan Zeng1,2,3, Yong Zhao1,2,3,4, Zumin Shi5.
Abstract
Studies on the relation between selenium intake and cognitive function are inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the associations between dietary selenium intake and cognitive function among Chinese adults and tested the interaction effect of selenium intake and iron intake on cognition. Data from 4852 adults aged 55 years and above who attended the 1991-2006 China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) were used. Cognitive function was assessed through face-to-face interviews in 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006. A 3-day, 24-hour recall was used to collect dietary selenium intake. Multivariable mixed linear regression and logistic regression were used in the analyses. In fully adjusted regression models, the regression coefficients (95% confidence interval) were 0.00, 0.29 (-0.12-0.70), 0.26 (-0.18-0.70), and 0.50 (0.02-0.97) across the quartiles of selenium intake. In the subgroup analysis, the positive association between selenium intake and cognitive function was only observed in the participants who live in the southern region but not those in the northern region. The selenium-intake-to-iron-intake ratio was inversely associated with low global cognition scores. Furthermore, only those with a normal BMI had a positive association between selenium and cognition. In conclusion, high selenium intake was linked to better cognitive function and a lower risk of cognition decline in Chinese adults among those with low iron intake. A substantial interaction was found between selenium intake and BMI or region.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese; adults; cognitive function; iron intake; nutrition survey; selenium intake
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893861 PMCID: PMC9332607 DOI: 10.3390/nu14153005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Sample flowchart of participants attending the China Health and Nutrition Survey.
Sample characteristics of Chinese adults aged ≥55 years old attending the first cognitive function test by quartiles of cumulative selenium intake (n = 4661).
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 65.9 (8.6) | 63.7 (8.0) | 62.1 (7.0) | 62.0 (6.7) | <0.001 |
| Sex | <0.001 | ||||
| Men | 424 (35.7%) | 456 (41.6%) | 594 (51.9%) | 763 (61.9%) | |
| Women | 765 (64.3%) | 639 (58.4%) | 551 (48.1%) | 469 (38.1%) | |
| Income | <0.001 | ||||
| Low | 509 (43.3%) | 355 (32.7%) | 323 (28.3%) | 276 (22.8%) | |
| Medium | 362 (30.8%) | 363 (33.4%) | 391 (34.3%) | 280 (23.2%) | |
| High | 304 (25.9%) | 369 (33.9%) | 427 (37.4%) | 652 (54.0%) | |
| Education | <0.001 | ||||
| Low | 870 (85.9%) | 811 (80.9%) | 722 (67.9%) | 645 (57.1%) | |
| Medium | 80 (7.9%) | 112 (11.2%) | 206 (19.4%) | 225 (19.9%) | |
| High | 63 (6.2%) | 79 (7.9%) | 135 (12.7%) | 260 (23.0%) | |
| Urbanization | <0.001 | ||||
| Low | 425 (35.7%) | 313 (28.6%) | 264 (23.1%) | 181 (14.7%) | |
| Medium | 355 (29.9%) | 326 (29.8%) | 320 (27.9%) | 297 (24.1%) | |
| High | 409 (34.4%) | 456 (41.6%) | 561 (49.0%) | 754 (61.2%) | |
| Region | <0.001 | ||||
| North | 430 (39.9%) | 367 (36.4%) | 461 (45.6%) | 658 (59.3%) | |
| South | 647 (60.1%) | 640 (63.6%) | 551 (54.4%) | 451 (40.7%) | |
| Smoking | <0.001 | ||||
| Non-smoker | 845 (71.5%) | 788 (72.2%) | 749 (65.5%) | 750 (60.9%) | |
| Ex-smoker | 45 (3.8%) | 38 (3.5%) | 38 (3.3%) | 49 (4.0%) | |
| Current smoker | 292 (24.7%) | 266 (24.4%) | 357 (31.2%) | 433 (35.1%) | |
| Survey year | <0.001 | ||||
| 1997 | 611 (51.4%) | 527 (48.1%) | 486 (42.4%) | 428 (34.7%) | |
| 2000 | 189 (15.9%) | 183 (16.7%) | 180 (15.7%) | 245 (19.9%) | |
| 2004 | 271 (22.8%) | 239 (21.8%) | 282 (24.6%) | 314 (25.5%) | |
| 2006 | 118 (9.9%) | 146 (13.3%) | 197 (17.2%) | 245 (19.9%) | |
| Alcohol drinking | 272 (23.4%) | 300 (27.8%) | 388 (34.7%) | 472 (38.8%) | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (MET) | 84.8 (100.4) | 96.3 (105.5) | 92.3 (101.2) | 78.9 (89.4) | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.2 (3.7) | 22.7 (3.6) | 23.3 (3.5) | 23.9 (3.4) | <0.001 |
| BMI ≥24 (kg/m2) | 293 (27.4%) | 339 (33.0%) | 426 (39.4%) | 543 (47.2%) | <0.001 |
| Energy intake (kcal/day) | 1771.0 (520.8) | 2025.6 (549.9) | 2169.3 (587.5) | 2393.8 (667.0) | <0.001 |
| Fat intake (g/day) | 51.2 (28.5) | 62.5 (35.7) | 69.0 (35.2) | 83.2 (38.9) | <0.001 |
| Protein intake (g/day) | 47.5 (14.8) | 59.2 (16.1) | 66.7 (18.7) | 80.2 (26.3) | <0.001 |
| Carbohydrate intake (g/day) | 277.2 (93.0) | 301.6 (98.2) | 313.3 (107.6) | 321.4 (118.0) | <0.001 |
| Iron intake (g/day) | 15.5 (7.0) | 19.0 (8.0) | 20.9 (9.5) | 25.1 (17.0) | <0.001 |
| Intake of fruit (g/day) | 13.1 (52.2) | 18.3 (83.8) | 21.6 (70.4) | 38.9 (100.9) | <0.001 |
| Intake of fresh vegetables (g/day) | 249.2 (179.9) | 270.3 (162.4) | 281.3 (186.7) | 298.2 (173.4) | <0.001 |
| Intake of meat (g/day) | 37.9 (49.5) | 65.0 (67.2) | 81.2 (77.6) | 111.1 (104.5) | <0.001 |
| Most recent selenium intake (mg/day) | 21.6 (8.1) | 31.8 (9.4) | 39.6 (12.6) | 62.5 (62.4) | <0.001 |
| Cumulative selenium intake (mg/day) | 22.3 (4.9) | 32.5 (2.2) | 40.3 (2.6) | 60.7 (22.9) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension | 406 (37.0%) | 332 (31.7%) | 389 (35.6%) | 439 (37.4%) | 0.023 |
| Diabetes | 31 (2.7%) | 29 (2.7%) | 32 (2.9%) | 57 (4.7%) | 0.011 |
| Stroke | 28 (2.4%) | 20 (0.9%) | 19 (1.7%) | 33 (2.7%) | 0.29 |
| Poor memory | 350 (29.7%) | 223 (20.7%) | 210 (18.4%) | 181 (14.8%) | <0.001 |
| Memory decline | 574 (49.3%) | 446 (42.4%) | 397 (35.7%) | 362 (30.2%) | <0.001 |
| Global cognitive function score <7 | 320 (26.9%) | 215 (19.6%) | 152 (13.3%) | 150 (12.2%) | <0.001 |
Data are presented as mean (SD) for continuous measures, and n (%) for categorical measures.
Association between quartiles of selenium intake and cognitive function among Chinese adults aged 55 years and above attending the China Health and Nutrition Survey (n = 4852).
| Quartiles of Selenium Intake | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | |||||
| Global cognitive function | ||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 | 0.80 | (0.45–1.15) | 1.35 | (0.98–1.73) | 1.80 | (1.41–2.20) | 0.000 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 | 0.32 | (−0.06–0.69) | 0.44 | (0.05–0.84) | 0.46 | (0.03–0.88) | 0.037 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 | 0.32 | (−0.05–0.69) | 0.44 | (0.05–0.83) | 0.45 | (0.02–0.87) | 0.044 |
| Model 4 | 0.00 | 0.28 | (−0.10–0.67) | 0.37 | (−0.03–0.78) | 0.42 | (−0.02–0.85) | 0.075 |
| Model 5 | 0.00 | 0.27 | (−0.14–0.68) | 0.29 | (−0.15–0.72) | 0.48 | (0.01–0.95) | 0.074 |
| Model 6 | 0.00 | 0.29 | (−0.12–0.70) | 0.26 | (−0.18–0.70) | 0.50 | (0.02–0.97) | 0.071 |
Values are regression coefficients (95% CI) from mixed-effect linear regression. Model 1 adjusted for age, gender, and energy intake. Model 2 further adjusted for intake of fat, smoking, alcohol drinking, income (low, medium, and high), urbanicity (low, medium, and high), education (low, medium, and high), and physical activity level (continuous). Model 3 further adjusted for fruit and vegetable intake (continuous). Model 4 further adjusted for BMI and hypertension. Model 5 further excluded those who only participated in one wave of the cognitive function tests. Model 6 further adjusted for self-reported diabetes and stroke. All the adjusted variables are treated as time-varying covariates (except gender).
Odds ratios (95% CI) for self-reported poor memory and self-reported memory decline by quartiles of selenium intake among Chinese adults aged ≥55 years in the China Health and Nutrition Survey (n = 4852).
| Quartiles of Selenium Intake | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | |||||
| Self-reported poor memory | ||||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.73 | (0.63–0.85) | 0.65 | (0.55–0.76) | 0.53 | (0.45–0.62) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.68–0.94) | 0.75 | (0.63–0.90) | 0.68 | (0.56–0.83) | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.68–0.94) | 0.75 | (0.63–0.89) | 0.67 | (0.55–0.81) | <0.001 |
| Model 4 | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.68–0.95) | 0.78 | (0.65–0.94) | 0.67 | (0.55–0.83) | 0.001 |
| Model 5 | 1.00 | 0.81 | (0.68–0.98) | 0.76 | (0.62–0.92) | 0.68 | (0.55–0.85) | 0.001 |
| Model 6 | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.67–0.96) | 0.75 | (0.61–0.91) | 0.68 | (0.54–0.84) | 0.001 |
| Self-reported memory decline | ||||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.67–0.96) | 0.75 | (0.61–0.91) | 0.68 | (0.54–0.84) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.82 | (0.72–0.93) | 0.65 | (0.57–0.74) | 0.51 | (0.45–0.59) | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 | 0.88 | (0.76–1.02) | 0.74 | (0.64–0.87) | 0.66 | (0.56–0.78) | <0.001 |
| Model 4 | 1.00 | 0.88 | (0.76–1.02) | 0.74 | (0.64–0.87) | 0.66 | (0.56–0.78) | <0.001 |
| Model 5 | 1.00 | 0.88 | (0.75–1.02) | 0.74 | (0.63–0.87) | 0.65 | (0.54–0.77) | <0.001 |
| Model 6 | 1.00 | 0.85 | (0.73–1.01) | 0.71 | (0.60–0.85) | 0.65 | (0.54–0.78) | <0.001 |
Model 1 adjusted for age, gender, and energy intake. Model 2 further adjusted for intake of fat, smoking, alcohol drinking, income, urbanicity, education, and physical activity. Model 3 further adjusted for overall dietary patterns. Model 4 further adjusted for BMI and hypertension. Model 5 further excluded those who only participated in one wave of the cognitive function tests. Model 6 further adjusted for self-reported diabetes and stroke. All the adjusted variables are treated as time-varying covariates (except gender).
Figure 2Interaction between selenium intake and BMI in relation to cognitive function score. Values are means (95% CI) derived by using the margins command in Stata after running a mixed linear model adjusted for age, gender, intake of energy and fat, education, urbanicity, smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, and fruit and vegetable intake. p for interaction between selenium intake and BMI was 0.002. An ordinal value (1, 2, 3, 4) was assigned to reflect the quartiles of selenium intake level. Q, quartile.
ORs (95% CIs) for global cognitive scores < 7 across quartiles of selenium intake among Chinese adults aged ≥55 y by sample characteristics: China Health and Nutrition Survey (n = 4852).
| Quartiles of Selenium Intake | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||||||
| All | 1.00 | 0.76 | (0.63–0.92) | 0.70 | (0.57–0.87) | 0.69 | (0.54–0.87) | 0.001 | |
| Income | 0.469 | ||||||||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.66 | (0.50–0.89) | 0.64 | (0.46–0.90) | 0.48 | (0.32–0.71) | 0.000 | |
| Medium | 1.00 | 0.87 | (0.63–1.20) | 0.69 | (0.49–0.99) | 0.77 | (0.51–1.17) | 0.087 | |
| High | 1.00 | 0.85 | (0.56–1.30) | 0.82 | (0.52–1.29) | 0.96 | (0.61–1.52) | 0.930 | |
| Overweight | 0.012 | ||||||||
| No | 1.00 | 0.69 | (0.55–0.86) | 0.60 | (0.47–0.78) | 0.52 | (0.39–0.71) | 0.000 | |
| Yes | 1.00 | 1.03 | (0.72–1.47) | 1.02 | (0.71–1.46) | 1.16 | (0.79–1.71) | 0.481 | |
| Hypertension | 0.680 | ||||||||
| No | 1.00 | 0.80 | (0.64–1.00) | 0.67 | (0.52–0.87) | 0.70 | (0.52–0.93) | 0.003 | |
| Yes | 1.00 | 0.68 | (0.49–0.94) | 0.76 | (0.54–1.07) | 0.65 | (0.44–0.96) | 0.049 | |
| sex | 0.513 | ||||||||
| Men | 1.00 | 0.90 | (0.63–1.28) | 0.69 | (0.48–1.00) | 0.67 | (0.45–0.98) | 0.019 | |
| Women | 1.00 | 0.70 | (0.56–0.88) | 0.71 | (0.54–0.92) | 0.72 | (0.53–0.98) | 0.016 | |
| Urbanization | 0.439 | ||||||||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.66 | (0.47–0.93) | 0.66 | (0.44–0.99) | 0.62 | (0.38–1.03) | 0.022 | |
| Medium | 1.00 | 0.91 | (0.64–1.29) | 0.93 | (0.63–1.38) | 0.65 | (0.41–1.02) | 0.108 | |
| High | 1.00 | 0.75 | (0.55–1.02) | 0.60 | (0.43–0.85) | 0.74 | (0.52–1.06) | 0.064 | |
| Region | 0.005 | ||||||||
| North | 1.00 | 0.90 | (0.61–1.33) | 0.79 | (0.53–1.17) | 1.26 | (0.84–1.90) | 0.385 | |
| South | 1.00 | 0.70 | (0.55–0.89) | 0.66 | (0.50–0.88) | 0.50 | (0.35–0.72) | 0.000 | |
Values are odds ratios (95% CI) from mixed-effect logistic regression. Mixed-effect logistic modes adjusted for age, gender, intake of energy and fat, smoking, alcohol drinking, income, urbanicity, education, physical activity, intake of fruits and vegetables, BMI, and hypertension. Stratification variables were not adjusted in the corresponding models. Income was categorized into low, medium, and high on the basis of tertiles of year-specific income.