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.
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.