Early adult to midlife trajectory of inflammation and midlife cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Late‐life inflammation, often measured by peripheral biomarkers, has been linked to risk of developing dementia and preclinical cognitive decline. Little is known about early adulthood inflammation and if this could influence cognition earlier in life. Furthermore, few studies have investigated repeated measures of inflammation. Method We studied 1920 adults (mean age 33.3 ±3.5, 53% female, 62% white) who were enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. We used latent class analysis to identify inflammation trajectories using repeated C‐reactive protein (CRP) measurements (≥3 CRP assessments) over almost two decades. At midlife (mean age 55.4 ±3.5), we assessed cognition using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Stroop Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and fluency tests. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between inflammation trajectories and poor cognitive performance, defined as a score ≥1 standard deviation below the cohort mean for each test. Result Three early to mid‐adult inflammation trajectories were identified: consistently low (34% [n=676]), moderate/increasing (15.0% [n=150]), and consistently high (51% [n=1094]). Those participants in the moderate/increasing or high trajectories had about a two‐fold greater risk (adjusting for age, race, sex, and education) of poor cognitive performance on processing speed and executive function tasks compared to those in the consistently low trajectory. Further adjustment for physical activity, smoking, alcohol, hypertension and diabetes led to similar results (DSST: moderate/increasing OR=2.11 95%CI 1.22‐3.65, high OR=1.52 95%CI 1.07‐2.15; Stroop: high OR=1.68 95%CI 1.16‐2.44). There were no differences by trajectory in odds of poor cognitive performance on memory or global cognition domains. Conclusion High or moderate/increasing early to mid‐adult inflammation trajectory was associated with an almost 2‐fold higher odds of worse executive function and processing speed in midlife. These findings suggest that inflammation is an important association for cognitive aging and may begin much earlier in life than previously known.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".