ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2023
Cognition and Mortality Risk Among Midlife and Older Americans.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insomnia and inflammatory exposure impair spatial memory and cognitive mapping in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2026Trial
- Intrinsic capacity and survival among older adults in India: LASI-DAD study (wave 1 and wave 2).The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Blood mitochondrial heteroplasmic variants and cognitive performance in late midlife: REGARDS study.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Associations of frailty and cognitive impairment with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort study from NHANES 2011-2014.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Chromogranin a gene variants influence survival at old age through pleiotropic effects on multiple age-related traits.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Aging dimensions and markers as relative predictors of mortality in a longitudinal epidemiological sample.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment is associated with increased mortality rates in late life, but it is unclear whether worse cognition predicts working-age mortality.
methodsThe data come from a U.S. national survey (N = 3 973 aged 32-84 at cognitive testing in 2004-06, mean age 56.6, 56.3% female; N = 3 055 retested in 2013-18 at ages 42-94, mean age 64.6, 56.6% female; mortality follow-up through 2019). We use Cox hazard models to investigate whether cognition is associated with mortality below age 65, how the magnitude of this risk compares with the risk in later life, and whether the association persists after adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsWorse cognition is associated with mortality, but the demographic-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) diminishes with age from 2.0 per standard deviation (SD; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.4) at age 55-1.4 (95% CI, 1.3-1.6) at age 85. In the fully adjusted model, the corresponding HRs are 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.7) and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.4), respectively. The absolute differences in mortality by level of cognition, however, are larger at older ages because mortality is rare at younger ages. The fully adjusted model implies a 2.7 percentage point differential in the estimated percentage dying between ages 55 and 65 for those with low cognition (1 SD below the overall mean, 5.7%) versus high cognition (1 SD above the mean, 3.0%). The corresponding differential between ages 75 and 85 is 8.4 percentage points (24.6% vs 16.2%, respectively).
conclusionsCognitive function may be a valuable early warning sign of premature mortality, even at working ages, when dementia is rare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.