Validation of the Updated "LIfestyle for BRAin health" (LIBRA) Index in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Maastricht Aging Study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/JAD-240666
Colin Rosenau, Sebastian Köhler, Martin van Boxtel, Huibert Tange, Kay Deckers
{"title":"Validation of the Updated \"LIfestyle for BRAin health\" (LIBRA) Index in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Maastricht Aging Study.","authors":"Colin Rosenau, Sebastian Köhler, Martin van Boxtel, Huibert Tange, Kay Deckers","doi":"10.3233/JAD-240666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The \"LIfestyle for BRAin health\" (LIBRA) index was recently updated with three new modifiable factors: hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep (LIBRA2), but has not yet been validated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparison of the performance of both LIBRA versions in predicting dementia risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Longitudinal data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) and the Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS) were used. The weighted LIBRA (11/12 factors available) and LIBRA2 (14/15 factors available) scores were calculated, with higher scores representing an unhealthier lifestyle. Dementia diagnoses were based on self- or informant reported physician diagnosis, an informant-based cognitive screening tool, registry data or test data. Cox-proportional hazards regression was used to investigate the association between LIBRA(2) scores and dementia risk. Model fit and predictive accuracy were determined using the Akaike information criterion and Harrell's C index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over an average follow-up of 8.3 years in ELSA and 17.9 years in MAAS, 346 (4.6%) and 120 (8.5%) individuals developed dementia, respectively. In ELSA, a one-point increase in LIBRA2 was associated with an 8% (1.06-1.11) higher dementia risk (LIBRA: 13%, 1.09-1.16). In MAAS, a one-point increase in LIBRA2 was associated with a 6% (1.01-1.12) higher dementia risk (LIBRA: 8%, 0.99-1.16). In ELSA, LIBRA (Harrell's C = 0.68) and LIBRA2 (Harrell's C = 0.67) performed similarly. In MAAS, LIBRA2 (Harrell's C = 0.62) performed better compared to LIBRA (Harrell's C = 0.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LIBRA2 is a better model for identifying individuals at increased dementia risk and for public health initiatives aimed at dementia risk reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-240666","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The "LIfestyle for BRAin health" (LIBRA) index was recently updated with three new modifiable factors: hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep (LIBRA2), but has not yet been validated.

Objective: Comparison of the performance of both LIBRA versions in predicting dementia risk.

Methods: Longitudinal data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) and the Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS) were used. The weighted LIBRA (11/12 factors available) and LIBRA2 (14/15 factors available) scores were calculated, with higher scores representing an unhealthier lifestyle. Dementia diagnoses were based on self- or informant reported physician diagnosis, an informant-based cognitive screening tool, registry data or test data. Cox-proportional hazards regression was used to investigate the association between LIBRA(2) scores and dementia risk. Model fit and predictive accuracy were determined using the Akaike information criterion and Harrell's C index.

Results: Over an average follow-up of 8.3 years in ELSA and 17.9 years in MAAS, 346 (4.6%) and 120 (8.5%) individuals developed dementia, respectively. In ELSA, a one-point increase in LIBRA2 was associated with an 8% (1.06-1.11) higher dementia risk (LIBRA: 13%, 1.09-1.16). In MAAS, a one-point increase in LIBRA2 was associated with a 6% (1.01-1.12) higher dementia risk (LIBRA: 8%, 0.99-1.16). In ELSA, LIBRA (Harrell's C = 0.68) and LIBRA2 (Harrell's C = 0.67) performed similarly. In MAAS, LIBRA2 (Harrell's C = 0.62) performed better compared to LIBRA (Harrell's C = 0.52).

Conclusions: LIBRA2 is a better model for identifying individuals at increased dementia risk and for public health initiatives aimed at dementia risk reduction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在英国老龄化纵向研究和马斯特里赫特老龄化研究中验证更新的 "LIfestyle for BRAin health"(LIBRA)指数。
背景:健康生活方式"(LIBRA)指数最近进行了更新,增加了三个新的可调节因素:听力障碍、社会接触和睡眠(LIBRA2),但尚未进行验证:比较两个版本的 LIBRA 在预测痴呆症风险方面的表现:方法:采用英国老龄化纵向研究(ELSA)和马斯特里赫特老龄化研究(MAAS)的纵向数据。计算加权 LIBRA(11/12 项可用因素)和 LIBRA2(14/15 项可用因素)得分,得分越高代表生活方式越不健康。痴呆症的诊断基于自我或线人报告的医生诊断、基于线人的认知筛查工具、登记数据或测试数据。Cox比例危害回归用于研究LIBRA(2)得分与痴呆症风险之间的关系。采用阿凯克信息准则和哈雷尔C指数确定模型的拟合度和预测准确性:在平均8.3年的ELSA随访和17.9年的MAAS随访中,分别有346人(4.6%)和120人(8.5%)罹患痴呆症。在ELSA中,LIBRA2每增加1分,痴呆症风险就会增加8%(1.06-1.11)(LIBRA:13%,1.09-1.16)。在MAAS中,LIBRA2每增加1分,痴呆风险就会增加6%(1.01-1.12)(LIBRA:8%,0.99-1.16)。在ELSA中,LIBRA(Harrell's C = 0.68)和LIBRA2(Harrell's C = 0.67)的表现相似。在 MAAS 中,LIBRA2(Harrell's C = 0.62)的表现优于 LIBRA(Harrell's C = 0.52):结论:LIBRA2 是一种更好的模型,可用于识别痴呆症风险增加的个体,以及旨在降低痴呆症风险的公共卫生措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
期刊最新文献
Economic evaluations of technology-based interventions used to provide care support for people with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers: A systematic review. Informing cognitively healthy research participants of modifiable dementia risk factors: Ethical implications. Mild behavioral impairment in people with mild cognitive impairment: Are the two conditions related? The partner paradox: How can we better understand shared cognitive decline in couples? Valuing the importance of sex differences in prodromal Alzheimer's disease based on structural magnetic resonance imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1