This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Wilson et al. explored the relationship between cognitive activity and incident dementia among consecutive elderly patients from the Rush Memory and Aging Project. The investigators hypothesized that self-reported higher levels of cognitive activity such as reading would be associated with older age of dementia onset in patients with clinical Alzheimer disease (AD). Of the 1903 included patients, 457 (24%) developed possible or probable AD over a mean of 6.8 years (±4.6) of follow-up. In the primary analysis, higher cognitive activity was independently associated with later dementia onset in the accelerated failure time model (estimate 0.026, 95% CI 0.013–0.039). This relationship persisted in multiple other exploratory models, including a model that accounted for sex and educational level, a model which adjusted for early-life cognitive activity (which bore no independent association with dementia), and a model excluding patients with possible AD from outcome events. When the top 10th percentile of patients with high cognitive activity were compared with the bottom 10th percentile, patients in the top 10th percentile developed dementia at a mean of 5 years later (93.6 vs 88.6 years). Dr. Krauss suggests that the hypothesized direction of the association (more cognitive activity → delay in dementia diagnosis) may possibly be reversed and that the low level of cognitive activity in late life may be an early sign of dementia. In an attempt to disprove this alternative hypothesis, the investigators analyzed the relationship between cognitive activity with markers of AD at enrollment and found no association. The authors agree with Dr. Krauss that their study cannot fully disprove the reverse causality hypothesis; however, these data complement previous research that continues to build the argument for an important relationship between cognitive activity and the subsequent symptoms of dementia.
In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Wilson et al. explored the relationship between cognitive activity and incident dementia among consecutive elderly patients from the Rush Memory and Aging Project. The investigators hypothesized that self-reported higher levels of cognitive activity such as reading would be associated with older age of dementia onset in patients with clinical Alzheimer disease (AD). Of the 1903 included patients, 457 (24%) developed possible or probable AD over a mean of 6.8 years (±4.6) of follow-up. In the primary analysis, higher cognitive activity was independently associated with later dementia onset in the accelerated failure time model (estimate 0.026, 95% CI 0.013–0.039). This relationship persisted in multiple other exploratory models, including a model that accounted for sex and educational level, a model which adjusted for early-life cognitive activity (which bore no independent association with dementia), and a model excluding patients with possible AD from outcome events. When the top 10th percentile of patients with high cognitive activity were compared with the bottom 10th percentile, patients in the top 10th percentile developed dementia at a mean of 5 years later (93.6 vs 88.6 years). Dr. Krauss suggests that the hypothesized direction of the association (more cognitive activity → delay in dementia diagnosis) may possibly be reversed and that the low level of cognitive activity in late life may be an early sign of dementia. In an attempt to disprove this alternative hypothesis, the investigators analyzed the relationship between cognitive activity with markers of AD at enrollment and found no association. The authors agree with Dr. Krauss that their study cannot fully disprove the reverse causality hypothesis; however, these data complement previous research that continues to build the argument for an important relationship between cognitive activity and the subsequent symptoms of dementia.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2022 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
