Next Article in Journal
Identification of a Hydroxygallic Acid Derivative, Zingibroside R1 and a Sterol Lipid as Potential Active Ingredients of Cuscuta chinensis Extract That Has Neuroprotective and Antioxidant Effects in Aged Caenorhabditis elegans
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum OLL2712 on Memory Function in Older Adults with Declining Memory: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Increasing Fruit and Vegetable Intake of Primary School Children in a Quasi-Randomized Trial: Evaluation of the Three-Year School-Based Multicomponent Intervention
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dietary Restriction against Parkinson’s Disease: What We Know So Far
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/nu14194198
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Higher Total Cholesterol Concentration May Be Associated with Better Cognitive Performance among Elderly Females

by
Ke Pang
1,†,
Chunxia Liu
1,†,
Jianbin Tong
1,
Wen Ouyang
1,
Shuntong Hu
2 and
Yongzhong Tang
1,*
1
Department of Anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China
2
Department of Neurology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work and share the first authorship.
Nutrients 2022, 14(19), 4198; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194198
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 4 October 2022 / Accepted: 6 October 2022 / Published: 9 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diet and Nutrition in Neurodegenerative Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The brain contains the highest level of cholesterol in the body, and the total amount of serum cholesterol in the blood has a huge impact on brain aging and cognitive performance. However, the association of total serum cholesterol with cognitive function remains uncertain. This study determines whether there is an association between the total amount of cholesterol in the blood and cognitive performance in elderly females without a history of stroke. Methods: This population-based cross-sectional study was conducted on elderly (over 60 years old) females and males without a history of stroke from 2011 to 2014 in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The primary exposure was total blood cholesterol, and the main outcome was cognitive performance; this association was assessed with logistic regression analysis and restricted cubic splines. Results: 1309 female and 1272 male participants were included. In females, higher total cholesterol was significantly associated with higher cognitive scores, particularly in the digit symbol substitution test (OR 0.51, 95% CI (0.36–0.72)) and the animal fluency test (OR 0.64, 95% CI (0.45–0.91)). This association remained significant in models adjusted for age, race, smoking status, education level, and chronic conditions (OR 0.40, 95% CI (0.25–0.63)). This association was not significant in males, however. Conclusions: A higher concentration of total cholesterol measured in later life may be a protective factor for cognitive performance among females over 60 years old without a history of stroke. Further, this association was more pronounced among women with higher levels of education than women with lower or no education.

1. Introduction

Dementia, or Alzheimer’s disease, is the fifth leading cause of death for individuals 65 years of age and older in the United States [1]. Worldwide, mild cognitive impairment affects 10–15% of the population aged 60 years or more [2]. Cognitive impairment results in various symptoms, including memory disorders, language decline, and execution ability disorder [3,4]. Cognitive impairments have become a key challenge for public health [5].
It has been hypothesized that lipid metabolism is associated with cardiovascular health problems [6]. However, lipid metabolism also plays an important role in cognitive health [7]. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is a structural constituent of membranes in the development of the central nervous system and potentially influences cognitive decline in adult life [8]. The brain contains the highest level of cholesterol in the body [9], and cholesterol is important for brain activity. For example, the myelin, which provides an insulating layer for neurons to increase the brain’s processing speed, contains 46% cholesterol [10]. Cholesterol is also associated with dopamine transport as it is present in the crystal structures of dopamine transporters (DATs) [11,12]. Meanwhile, low cholesterol levels are associated with a decrease in the number of serotonin receptors, leading to an overall reduction in serotonergic transmission in the brain [13]. Another related study revealed that a reduced turnover of serotonergic compounds in the brain, namely 5-HT, is associated with cognitive decline, including impaired long-term memory function and cognitive flexibility [14]. Besides the two informational molecules in brain, the decline in some hormones—including estrogen, progesterone, DHEA, and testosterone, whose precursors, namely pregnenolone, were independent of cholesterol—is associated with some types of mental syndrome or low cognitive performance [15,16,17,18].
However, in clinical practice, the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive performance [19], and the dose–response association between total cholesterol and cognitive performance, remain uncertain. Some researchers believe that this relationship may be age-related [20]. A high total cholesterol measured in midlife is associated with a higher probability of aging-related dementia and late-life cognitive impairment [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]; this risk could be mitigated if cholesterol is found to be a protective factor in late life [29,30].
Thus, we analyzed a sample of older females over 60 years old in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to elucidate the association between total cholesterol and cognition in late life.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a survey research program conducted to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States, tracking changes over time. It began in 1971 and became an annual event in 1999. In each cycle, approximately 5000 representative people are selected via a complex process of multistage probability sampling. All participants complete an informed consent document. The survey combines interviews, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. The participants first take part in an interview at home; physical examination and laboratory tests are conducted in the mobile examination center (MEC) before a call-back consultation is carried out within the next few days.
Two cycles (2011–2012 and 2013–2014) of data with the most recent information on cognitive function measures were collected and combined for our research. A total of 19,931 individuals participated in the NHANES from 2011 to 2014. A total of 2934 of the participants aged 60 or older were used in our research because only this sample of participants received a cognitive assessment. Among these participants, we further excluded those without total cholesterol measurements (N = 157) and participants with a history of stroke (N = 197). Next, the study enrolled 1309 female and 1272 male participants aged 60 or older (Figure 1).

2.2. Cholesterol Measurement

An enzymatic assay method and the Trinder reaction (Roche Modular P chemistry analyzer) were used to measure total cholesterol. A heparin–manganese precipitation method or a direct immunoassay technique was used to measure high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [31,32,33,34].

2.3. Cognitive Performance Assessment

The cognitive function of older participants (aged 60 or over) was estimated using four tests [35,36]: (1) the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) test, (2) the animal fluency test, (3) the digit symbol substitution test (DSST), and (4) the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) delayed recall test. The four tests are widely used in cohort studies to estimate memory, language, speech, and cognitive functions and to screen risk factors [37,38,39].
The CERAD [40] includes a word list recall test (immediate and delayed). The immediate word list recall measures mild cognitive impairment; the participant is asked to recall stimuli immediately after they are presented. This is used to identify mild dementia. The word list delayed recall is a verbal declarative memory test using a visually or verbally presented word list where participants are asked to remember as many words as possible after a specified delay interval in order to quantify memory performance [41,42].
The AFT is widely used to estimate the cognitive abilities of patients with various neurological diseases. The test requires participants to name as many animals as possible in a short period of time. A low AFT score reflects an impairment of language function [43,44]. It has been proven to identify patients with mild cognition impairment, dementia, and normal aging [45,46].
The DSST consisted of digit–symbol pairs followed by a list of digits. The participants aim to write the corresponding symbol from the 133 boxes that hold adjacent numbers as quickly as possible. The number of correct symbols within the allowed time (2 min) is the score [47].
Due to the ceiling and floor effect caused by a wide range of cognitive function in the elderly population, namely, the scale attenuation effect [48,49], we created a global cognitive score by averaging the standardized scores of the three cognitive tests scores (the CERAD, animal fluency, and Digit symbol substitution tests) [50,51]. As there are no standard cutoff points for the CERAD, animal fluency, and DSST tests to identify low or normal cognitive function, we used the 25th percentile of the scores among different groups of participants as the cutoff point, which followed the method used in previous studies [52]. Given the significant effect of age on cognitive function, the global score was stratified at different ages (60–69 years, 70–79 years, and ≥80 years) [53]. For each test or global score, the participants were divided into a low-cognitive-performance group and a normal-cognitive-performance group—the former group’s scores were less than or equal to the corresponding cutoff values, while the latter group’s scores were higher than the corresponding cutoff values.

2.4. Covariates

A variety of covariates were introduced into our study according to previous research [53,54]; these covariates are considered to have an association with cognitive function decline: race (Mexican American, other Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or other race), age (60–70, 70–80, and ≥80 years), education level (less than 9th grade, 9–11th grade, above 11th grade), poverty–income ratio (<1 and ≥1), smoking (smoked less than 100 cigarettes in life, smoked more than 100 cigarettes in life but does not smoke now, smoked more than 100 cigarettes and still smokes), body mass index (BMI) (normal: <25 kg/m2; overweight: 25 to 30 kg/m2; obese: ≥30 kg/m2), marital status, drinking (having at least 12 alcohol drinks per year or not), diabetes (was diagnosed with diabetes or the value of fasting glycated hemoglobin more than 6.4 [55]), and chronic conditions including hypertension and stroke.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed on the original datasets extracted from the NHANES and a complex sample analysis was performed using the stratification, cluster, and sample weight variables provides in the NHANES [56]. A new sample weight variable for the two combined datasets from 2011 to 2014 was created by taking one twice for the 2-year weight for each participant sampled from 2011 to 2012 and one twice for the 2-year weight for each person sampled from 2013 to 2014. We used R 4.1.0 programming for statistical analysis and the R survey package to appropriately weigh analyses for the complex, multistage sampling design of NHANES. Continuous variable data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables were expressed as percentages. Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare the categorical variables between low- and normal-cognitive-performance groups. A Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare different levels of continuous variables between groups. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
In this study, the total cholesterol values among female and male participants were categorized into four groups according to first quartile, medium, and third quartile. For the main outcome (low or normal cognitive performance), single-variable logistic regression was performed to analyze the association between cognitive performance and total cholesterol in an unadjusted model. Multivariable logistic regression was performed and controlled for the effects of the following covariates of cognitive function: age, education level, race, smoking and drinking status, poverty–income ratio, BMI, chronic conditions (including diabetes and hypertension), and marriage status. The variables including age, race, education level, marriage status, poverty–income ratio, and BMI were used for adjustment in Model 2; the variables, including Model 2 plus drinking status, smoking status, and chronic conditions (hypertension and diabetes), were used for adjustment in Model 3.

3. Results

The demographic characteristics of all the participants (N = 2581) and of the female (N = 1309) and the male (N = 1272) participants in the final study sample were summarized and shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The results showed that the decline in cognitive performance was significantly associated with race, ratio of family income to poverty, chronic conditions (including diabetes and hypertension), drinking status, education level, and total cholesterol (p < 0.01). Participants who were considered to have a cognitive impairment were more likely to be Mexican American, other Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and other races; have lower educational level and poverty–income ratio; have chronic conditions (including diabetes and hypertension); drink more; be widowed, divorced, separated, or never married; or have lower total cholesterol levels. For DSST, the prevalence of smoking (including currently smoking or previously smoked) in participants with low cognitive performance was significantly higher than that of people with normal cognitive performance. However, a higher concentration of total cholesterol was significantly associated with cognitive function only among older female participants; in older male participants, this association was not significant.
Table 4 shows the relationship between the different dimensions of cognitive performance (including the animal fluency test, the digit symbol substitution test, and the CERAD test) and the different total cholesterol levels among older female participants.
In Model 1, compared with the low total cholesterol measurement, those reporting 201–229 mg/dL of total cholesterol had an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.52–1.00) for AST score, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37–0.75) for DSST score, and 0.49 (95% CI,0.34–0.69) for global cognitive performance; those reporting more than 229 mg/dL had an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36–0.72) for AST score, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.45–0.91) for DSST score, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.48–0.97) for CERAD test, and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.28–0.59) for global cognitive performance.
After adjustments for age, race, education level, the ratio of family income to poverty line, marriage status, and BMI, 201–229 mg/dL of total cholesterol was associated with the DSST (OR = 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35–0.87)) and global cognitive performance (OR = 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33–0.77)), whereas more than 229 mg/dL of total cholesterol was associated with different dimensions of cognitive performance (0.52 (95% CI, 0.35–0.77) for AST score, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48–1.04) for CERAD score, and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22–0.54) for global cognitive performance).
Additionally, in Model 3, compared with low total cholesterol levels, those who had 201–229 mg/dL of total cholesterol had a multivariate-adjusted OR (95% CI) of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39–0.99) for DSST, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37–0.90) for global cognitive performance, and those who had more than 229 mg/dL of total cholesterol had a multivariate-adjusted OR (95% CI) of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.38–0.85) for AST score, and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25–0.63) for global cognitive performance. The trend test shown in Table 4 showed that cognitive performance (including global cognitive performance and the AST score) was associated with total cholesterol in a dose-dependent manner (ptrend < 0.05) in an adjusted model, and that a higher dose of total cholesterol had a greater advantage for the protection of cognition.
However, Table 5 showed that, among older female participants, the association between total cholesterol and cognitive function was not obvious before or after adjustment for other variables in the logistic regression analysis. We performed a sub-groups analysis in terms of education level, as shown in Table 6. The result showed that higher total cholesterol was significantly associated with normal cognitive performance in people who have received higher education, while higher total cholesterol was normally associated with normal cognitive performance in people with a medium level of education.
Restricted cubic spline analyses between total cholesterol and the Animal Fluency Test score (A), the DDST (B), the CERAD test (C), and the global cognitive performance (D). The solid line and dashed lines represent the estimated ORs and their 95% confidence intervals (OR, odds ratio).
Figure 2 described the results of the restricted cubic spline analyses between the Animal Fluency test, the DSST, the CERAD test, and the global cognitive performance, respectively, among female participants. The prevalence of impaired cognitive function decreased with the increasing value of total cholesterol and showed a potential nonlinear association.
The baseline characteristics of the approximately 25 million persons represented by the 1309 female participants are shown in Supplementary Table S1, in which the result was similar to that in Table 2. Additionally, we found similar results (Supplementary Table S2) that total cholesterol was a protective factor for cognitive performance with logistic regression, especially in the Animal Fluency Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and global cognitive performance. Furthermore, the trend analysis in Supplementary Table S2 suggested a dose-dependent protective role for total cholesterol in cognitive performance. Additionally, the missing data in the original dataset of the female participants are shown in Supplementary Table S3.

4. Discussion

With the increase in life expectancy, cognitive impairment is an important public health problem; furthermore, the incidence of cognitive impairment is increasing. A systematic review has reported that the global prevalence of cognitive impairment ranged from 5.1% to 41% [57]. The factors leading to cognitive decline vary, including increasing age, lower education, race, and chronic conditions such as stroke and diabetes [58]. However, it has not been confirmed whether the amount of total cholesterol measured in late life is a protective factor for cognitive function.
In this study, we combined data including NHANES 2011–2012 and 2013–2014. This research explored data provided by 1309 female Americans aged 60 years or older who had no history of stroke. The 1309 female participants are representative of approximately twenty-five million people in America. In the unadjusted model, a high concentration of total cholesterol was statistically associated with higher global cognitive and animal fluency test scores. In the model adjusted for age, race, education levels, income–poverty ratio, history of diabetes, and smoking status, total cholesterol remained associated with global cognitive and animal fluency scores.
To date, evidence for the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive function in elderly populations has been equivocal and inconclusive, likely due to the effects of aging. Our findings on the relation between total cholesterol and cognition were consistent with some previous studies. Research based on 382 people studied the relationship between concentrations of total cholesterol and cognitive performance in participants ranging from 70 to 90 years old, revealing that a lower total cholesterol value is associated with poorer cognition in both non-dementia and dementia cases [59]. Another 70-year follow-up study including 1034 people showed that higher total cholesterol and HDL-C values were associated with higher cognitive scores among participants aged 70 [60], although the relationship between cholesterol levels and cognition were mostly no longer significant after considering IQ test scores recorded in early life.
There have also been studies revealing total cholesterol’s harmful effects on cognition. A study found that higher blood concentrations of total cholesterol were related to faster global cognitive decline in a population of 1159 Chinese adults aged over 60 [61]; the associations between all lipids and cognitive decline appeared to be more significant among individuals over 100 years old. Another study found that higher circulating total cholesterol indicated an increased risk of mild cognitive impairment in elderly females [62]. However, these two studies enrolled participants who were different from the participants in our studies, and the cognitive scale they used was different from the scales used in our study [63]. The population enrolled in the former study investigated Chinese adults over 60 years who had only received a basic education [64]. However, our sub-groups analysis found that higher total cholesterol was only significantly associated with normal cognitive performance among the female population who had received a higher education. Moreover, our sample size was larger, with 1309 female individuals without a history of stroke; the weighted sample size was approximately twenty-five million people. A meta-analysis based on eight studies and over 21,000 individuals aged over 60 years found that there were no relationships between cholesterol and cognitive decline or dementia in older adult groups [65].
Some studies have suggested that this relationship could be age-dependent, i.e., the higher concentration of total cholesterol measured at midlife was a risk factor for late-life cognition [66], while the higher concentration of total cholesterol measured at late-life was a risk factor for late-life cognition [19,20,21,29,30,67].
Although genetic susceptibility and metabolic function determine an individual’s lipid profile to a great extent, factors related to lifestyle may affect the clearance of cholesterol. Different kinds of diet may affect cognitive function [68,69]. In addition to dietary intake, smoking status [70], education level [71], family income [72], race, and chronic conditions were proven to be associated with cognition decline. As a result, we introduced these features as co-variables. Dietary cholesterol has been considered to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and, for cardiovascular events, a low cholesterol level is advisable. A study reported that increased cholesterol levels were associated with a high CVD risk among young adults [73]. However, recently some studies found that total cholesterol had protective qualities for some non-cardiovascular conditions and hemorrhagic stroke [74,75], especially among the old-aged [76]. Higher total cholesterol was associated with a decrease in mortality among people over 85 years old. In addition, people who are old with a low concentration of total cholesterol had higher all-cause mortality [77]. As a result, we believe a higher concentration of serum total cholesterol signifies better health conditions in late life, in terms of both cognition performance and other non-cardiovascular and hemorrhagic stroke conditions.

5. Limitations

There are several limitations and strengths in our study. First, we chose the NHANES as our data source, which provided a sufficiently large sample size. Second, we used four standard scores of four cognitive tests to create a global compound cognitive score to minimize the ceiling and floor effects. Third, considering that age was the major risk factor for cognitive impairment, age was used to divide the population and to calculate the cut-off values (the lowest quartile) of each group. However, as a cross-sectional study, this research could not reveal the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive performance for the population at different ages. Further longitudinal studies need to be conducted to investigate the nonlinear longitudinal relationship between total cholesterol and neuropsychological function and cognitive performance.
Investigating the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive function can provide information that is significant for the prevention of cognition decline. Because this effect could be age-related, we might consider adopting different strategies in different ages in future work.

6. Conclusions

In America, a higher concentration of total cholesterol measured in late life may be a protective factor for cognitive performance among females over 60 years without a history of stroke. This association was more significant among females with higher education levels and was not as apparent in females with lower education levels or without an education. We postulate that a better total cholesterol concentration could be 200 mg/dL in elderly females without a medical history of strokes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu14194198/s1, Table S1: Characteristics of the study population after weighting; Table S2: Weighted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol in survey data; Table S3: Missing Data of Variables for Table 2.

Author Contributions

W.O. and Y.T. designed the study; K.P. and C.L. organized data; C.L. examined the data; K.P., C.L. and Y.T. analyzed data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; J.T. and S.H. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Project of Health and Health Commission of Hunan Province (grant number 20201802), the National Key R&D Programme of China (grant number 2018YFC2001800), the Xiangya Bigdata foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81870861).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived because the study was an analysis of a third-party anonymized publicly available database.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from NHANES and are available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx (accessed on 26 March 2022) [78].

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to all persons who participated in this study. To all the people who made efforts for this study, we would equally like to thank them for their collaboration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arruda, E.H.; Paun, O. Dementia Caregiver Grief and Bereavement: An Integrative Review. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2017, 39, 825–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Anderson, N.D. State of the science on mild cognitive impairment (MCI). CNS Spectr. 2019, 24, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Pei, H.; Ma, L.; Cao, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.; Liu, N.; Liu, M.; Wei, Y.; Li, H. Traditional Chinese Medicine for Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Cognitive Impairment: A Review. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2020, 48, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sherman, J.C.; Henderson, C.R.; Flynn, S.; Gair, J.W.; Lust, B. Language Decline Characterizes Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment Independent of Cognitive Decline. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2021, 64, 4287–4307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & Alzheimer’s Association. The Healthy Brain Initiative: The Public Health Road Map for State and National Partnerships, 2013–2018; Alzheimer’s Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim, A.S.; Conte, M.S. Specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators in cardiovascular disease, diagnosis, and therapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 159, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Morley, J.E.; Banks, W.A. Lipids and cognition. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2010, 20, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lauritzen, L.; Brambilla, P.; Mazzocchi, A.; Harsløf, L.B.S.; Ciappolino, V.; Agostoni, C. DHA Effects in Brain Development and Function. Nutrients 2016, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Björkhem, I.; Meaney, S.J. Brain cholesterol: Long secret life behind a barrier. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2004, 24, 806–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Poitelon, Y.; Kopec, A.M.; Belin, S. Myelin Fat Facts: An Overview of Lipids and Fatty Acid Metabolism. Cells 2020, 9, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zeppelin, T.; Ladefoged, L.K.; Sinning, S.; Periole, X.; Schiøtt, B. A direct interaction of cholesterol with the dopamine transporter prevents its out-to-inward transition. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018, 14, e1005907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jones, K.T.; Zhen, J.; Reith, M.E.A. Importance of cholesterol in dopamine transporter function. J. Neurochem. 2012, 123, 700–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Shrivastava, S.; Pucadyil, T.J.; Paila, Y.D.; Ganguly, S.; Chattopadhyay, A. Chronic cholesterol depletion using statin impairs the function and dynamics of human serotonin(1A) receptors. Biochemistry 2010, 49, 5426–5435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schmitt, J.A.J.; Wingen, M.; Ramaekers, J.G.; Evers, E.A.T.; Riedel, W.J. Serotonin and human cognitive performance. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2006, 12, 2473–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hara, Y.; Waters, E.M.; McEwen, B.S.; Morrison, J.H. Estrogen Effects on Cognitive and Synaptic Health Over the Lifecourse. Physiol. Rev. 2015, 95, 785–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Henderson, V.W. Progesterone and human cognition. Climacteric 2018, 21, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. de Menezes, K.J.; Peixoto, C.; Nardi, A.E.; Carta, M.G.; Machado, S.; Veras, A.B. Dehydroepiandrosterone, Its Sulfate and Cognitive Functions. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health CP EMH 2016, 12, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Beauchet, O. Testosterone and cognitive function: Current clinical evidence of a relationship. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2006, 155, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. McFarlane, O.; Kędziora-Kornatowska, K. Cholesterol and Dementia: A Long and Complicated Relationship. Curr. Aging Sci. 2020, 13, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Van Vliet, P. Cholesterol and late-life cognitive decline. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2012, 30, S147–S162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Van Vliet, P.; van de Water, W.; de Craen, A.J.M.; Westendorp, R.G.J. The influence of age on the association between cholesterol and cognitive function. Exp. Gerontol. 2009, 44, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zambón, D.; Quintana, M.; Mata, P.; Alonso, R.; Benavent, J.; Cruz-Sánchez, F.; Gich, J.; Pocoví, M.; Civeira, F.; Capurro, S.; et al. Higher incidence of mild cognitive impairment in familial hypercholesterolemia. Am. J. Med. 2010, 123, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Yaffe, K.; Vittinghoff, E.; Pletcher, M.J.; Hoang, T.D.; Launer, L.J.; Whitmer, R.; Coker, L.H.; Sidney, S. Early adult to midlife cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive function. Circulation 2014, 129, 1560–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Reynolds, C.A.; Gatz, M.; Prince, J.A.; Berg, S.; Pedersen, N.L. Serum lipid levels and cognitive change in late life. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2010, 58, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Eskelinen, M.H.; Ngandu, T.; Helkala, E.-L.; Tuomilehto, J.; Nissinen, A.; Soininen, H.; Kivipelto, M. Fat intake at midlife and cognitive impairment later in life: A population-based CAIDE study. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2008, 23, 741–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Beydoun, M.A.; Beason-Held, L.L.; Kitner-Triolo, M.H.; Beydoun, H.A.; Ferrucci, L.; Resnick, S.M.; Zonderman, A.B. Statins and serum cholesterol’s associations with incident dementia and mild cognitive impairment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2011, 65, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Anstey, K.J.; Ashby-Mitchell, K.; Peters, R. Updating the Evidence on the Association between Serum Cholesterol and Risk of Late-Life Dementia: Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2017, 56, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kivipelto, M.; Helkala, E.L.; Hänninen, T.; Laakso, M.P.; Hallikainen, M.; Alhainen, K.; Soininen, H.; Tuomilehto, J.; Nissinen, A. Midlife vascular risk factors and late-life mild cognitive impairment: A population-based study. Neurology 2001, 56, 1683–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Solomon, A.; Kåreholt, I.; Ngandu, T.; Winblad, B.; Nissinen, A.; Tuomilehto, J.; Soininen, H.; Kivipelto, M. Serum cholesterol changes after midlife and late-life cognition: Twenty-one-year follow-up study. Neurology 2007, 68, 751–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wendell, C.R.; Waldstein, S.R.; Zonderman, A.B. Nonlinear longitudinal trajectories of cholesterol and neuropsychological function. Neuropsychology 2014, 28, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011–2012 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cholesterol-Total (TCHOL H) 2013. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2011-2012/TCHOL_G.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011–2012 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cholesterol-HDL(HDL_G) 2013. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2011-2012/HDL_G.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013–2014 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cholesterol-HDL (HDL_H). Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2013-2014/HDL_H.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013–2014 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cholesterol-Total (TCHOL H). Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2013-2014/TCHOL_H.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013–2014 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cognitive Functioning (CFQ H). Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2013-2014/CFQ_H.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011–2012 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Cognitive Functioning (CFQ-G). Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2011-2012/CFQ_G.htm (accessed on 26 March 2022).
  37. Lee, S.; Min, J.-Y.; Kim, B.; Ha, S.-W.; Han, J.H.; Min, K.-B. Serum sodium in relation to various domains of cognitive function in the elderly US population. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Botelho, J.; Leira, Y.; Viana, J.; Machado, V.; Lyra, P.; Aldrey, J.M.; Pías-Peleteiro, J.M.; Blanco, J.; Sobrino, T.; Mendes, J.J. The Role of Inflammatory Diet and Vitamin D on the Link between Periodontitis and Cognitive Function: A Mediation Analysis in Older Adults. Nutrients 2021, 13, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Katzman, E.W.; Nielsen, S.J. The Association between Peanut and Peanut Butter Consumption and Cognitive Function among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J. Prev. Alzheimers Dis. 2021, 8, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Morris, J.C.; Heyman, A.; Mohs, R.C.; Hughes, J.P.; van Belle, G.; Fillenbaum, G.; Mellits, E.D.; Clark, C. The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1989, 39, 1159–1165. [Google Scholar]
  41. Aka, A.; Phan, T.D.; Kahana, M.J. Predicting recall of words and lists. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2021, 47, 765–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Santos-Galduróz, R.F.; Oliveira, F.G.; Galduróz, J.C.F.; Bueno, O.F.A. Cognitive performance of young and elderly subjects on the free word recall memory test: Effect of presentation order on recall order. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2009, 42, 988–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Lucas, J.A.; Ivnik, R.J.; Smith, G.E.; Ferman, T.J.; Willis, F.B.; Petersen, R.C.; Graff-Radford, N.R. Mayo’s Older African Americans Normative Studies: Norms for Boston Naming Test, Controlled Oral Word Association, Category Fluency, Animal Naming, Token Test, WRAT-3 Reading, Trail Making Test, Stroop Test, and Judgment of Line Orientation. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2005, 19, 243–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rinehardt, E.; Eichstaedt, K.; Schinka, J.A.; Loewenstein, D.A.; Mattingly, M.; Fils, J.; Duara, R.; Schoenberg, M.R. Verbal fluency patterns in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2014, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sebaldt, R.; Dalziel, W.; Massoud, F.; Tanguay, A.; Ward, R.; Thabane, L.; Melnyk, P.; Landry, P.-A.; Lescrauwaet, B. Detection of cognitive impairment and dementia using the animal fluency test: The DECIDE study. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 2009, 36, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. García-Herranz, S.; Díaz-Mardomingo, M.C.; Venero, C.; Peraita, H. Accuracy of verbal fluency tests in the discrimination of mild cognitive impairment and probable Alzheimer’s disease in older Spanish monolingual individuals. Neuropsychol. Dev. Cogn. B Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 2020, 27, 826–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Brukner, P.; Khan, K.; Kron, J. The Encyclopedia of Exercise, Sport and Health; George Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lim, C.R.; Harris, K.; Dawson, J.; Beard, D.J.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Price, A.J. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: An analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e007765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Vogt, W.P.; Johnson, B. Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, H.; Wang, Z.; Fu, Z.; Yan, M.; Wu, N.; Wu, H.; Yin, P. Associations between blood cadmium levels and cognitive function in a cross-sectional study of US adults aged 60 years or older. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e020533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Scherr, M.; Kunz, A.; Doll, A.; Mutzenbach, J.S.; Broussalis, E.; Bergmann, H.J.; Kirschner, M.; Trinka, E.; Killer-Oberpfalzer, M. Ignoring floor and ceiling effects may underestimate the effect of carotid artery stenting on cognitive performance. J. Neurointerv. Surg. 2016, 8, 747–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, S.P.; Bhattacharya, J.; Pershing, S. Association of Vision Loss With Cognition in Older Adults. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017, 135, 963–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Li, S.; Sun, W.; Zhang, D. Association of Zinc, Iron, Copper, and Selenium Intakes with Low Cognitive Performance in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). J. Alzheimers Dis. 2019, 72, 1145–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Dong, X.; Li, S.; Sun, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, D. Association of Coffee, Decaffeinated Coffee and Caffeine Intake from Coffee with Cognitive Performance in Older Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011–2014. Nutrients 2020, 12, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Cefalu, W.T.; Berg, E.G.; Saraco, M.; Petersen, M.P.; Uelmen, S.; Robinson, S. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020, 43, S14–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Schork, A.; Moll, K.; Haap, M.; Riessen, R.; Wagner, R. Course of lactate, pH and base excess for prediction of mortality in medical intensive care patients. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pais, R.; Ruano, L.; Carvalho, O.P.; Barros, H.J. Global cognitive impairment prevalence and incidence in community dwelling older adults—A systematic review. Geriatrics 2020, 5, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, H.B.; Richardson, A.K.; Black, B.S.; Shore, A.D.; Kasper, J.D.; Rabins, P.V. Race and cognitive decline among community-dwelling elders with mild cognitive impairment: Findings from the Memory and Medical Care Study. Aging Ment. Health 2012, 16, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Thorvaldsson, V.; Skoog, I.; Johansson, B. Cholesterol and cognitive aging: Between-person and within-person associations in a population-based representative sample not on lipid-lowering medication. Psychol. Aging 2020, 35, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Corley, J.; Starr, J.M.; Deary, I.J. Serum cholesterol and cognitive functions: The Lothian Birth Cohort 1936. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2015, 27, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Ma, C.; Yin, Z.; Zhu, P.; Luo, J.; Shi, X.; Gao, X. Blood cholesterol in late-life and cognitive decline: A longitudinal study of the Chinese elderly. Mol. Neurodegener. 2017, 12, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Guo, Y.; Li, P.; Ma, X.; Huang, X.; Liu, Z.; Ren, X.; Yang, Y.; Halm-Lutterodt, N.V.; Yuan, L. Association of Circulating Cholesterol Level with Cognitive Function and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Elderly: A Community-based Population Study. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2020, 17, 556–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yi, Z.; Vaupel, J.W. Functional capacity and self–evaluation of health and life of oldest old in China. J. Soc. Issues 2002, 58, 733–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Han, Y.; He, Y.; Lyu, J.; Yu, C.; Bian, M.; Lee, L. Aging in China: Perspectives on public health. Glob. Health J. 2020, 4, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Peters, R.; Xu, Y.; Antikainen, R.; Beckett, N.; Gussekloo, J.; Jagger, C.; Jukema, J.W.; Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi, S.; Rydén, L.; Skoog, I.; et al. Evaluation of High Cholesterol and Risk of Dementia and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults Using Individual Patient Meta-Analysis. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2021, 50, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Iwagami, M.; Qizilbash, N.; Gregson, J.; Douglas, I.; Johnson, M.; Pearce, N.; Evans, S.; Pocock, S. Blood cholesterol and risk of dementia in more than 1·8 million people over two decades: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021, 2, e498–e506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Panza, F.; D’Introno, A.; Colacicco, A.M.; Capurso, C.; Pichichero, G.; Capurso, S.A.; Capurso, A.; Solfrizzi, V. Lipid metabolism in cognitive decline and dementia. Brain Res. Rev. 2006, 51, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pavón, S.; Lázaro, E.; Martínez, O.; Amayra, I.; López-Paz, J.F.; Caballero, P.; Al-Rashaida, M.; Luna, P.M.; García, M.; Pérez, M.; et al. Ketogenic diet and cognition in neurological diseases: A systematic review. Nutr. Rev. 2021, 79, 802–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tussing-Humphreys, L.; Lamar, M.; Blumenthal, J.A.; Babyak, M.; Fantuzzi, G.; Blumstein, L.; Schiffer, L.; Fitzgibbon, M.L. Building research in diet and cognition: The BRIDGE randomized controlled trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2017, 59, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Swan, G.E.; Lessov-Schlaggar, C.N. The effects of tobacco smoke and nicotine on cognition and the brain. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2007, 17, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Lövdén, M.; Fratiglioni, L.; Glymour, M.M.; Lindenberger, U.; Tucker-Drob, E.M. Education and Cognitive Functioning Across the Life Span. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2020, 21, 6–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Tomasi, D.; Volkow, N.D. Associations of family income with cognition and brain structure in USA children: Prevention implications. Mol. Psychiatry 2021, 26, 6619–6629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Jeong, S.-M.; Choi, S.; Kim, K.; Kim, S.M.; Lee, G.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, Y.-Y.; Son, J.S.; Yun, J.-M.; Park, S.M. Effect of Change in Total Cholesterol Levels on Cardiovascular Disease Among Young Adults. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e008819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Abbott, C.; Meadows, A.B.; Lier, K. Low cholesterol and noncardiovascular mortality. Mil. Med. 2000, 165, 466–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Wang, X.; Dong, Y.; Qi, X.; Huang, C.; Hou, L. Cholesterol levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2013, 44, 1833–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Olsen, T.S.; Christensen, R.H.B.; Kammersgaard, L.P.; Andersen, K.K. Higher total serum cholesterol levels are associated with less severe strokes and lower all-cause mortality: Ten-year follow-up of ischemic strokes in the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Stroke 2007, 38, 2646–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Weverling-Rijnsburger, A.W.; Blauw, G.J.; Lagaay, A.M.; Knook, D.L.; Meinders, A.E.; Westendorp, R.G. Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet 1997, 350, 1119–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hyattsville, M.U.S.; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx (accessed on 26 March 2022).
Nutrients 14 04198 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart outlining the process for selecting participants.
Figure 1. Flow chart outlining the process for selecting participants.
Nutrients 14 04198 g001
Nutrients 14 04198 g002 550
Figure 2. Restricted cubic spline analyses for female participants. Restricted cubic spline analyses between total cholesterol and the Animal Fluency Test score (A), the DDST (B), the CERAD test (C) and the global cognitive performance (D). The solid line and dashed line represent the estimated ORs and their 95% confidence intervals (OR, odds ratio).
Figure 2. Restricted cubic spline analyses for female participants. Restricted cubic spline analyses between total cholesterol and the Animal Fluency Test score (A), the DDST (B), the CERAD test (C) and the global cognitive performance (D). The solid line and dashed line represent the estimated ORs and their 95% confidence intervals (OR, odds ratio).
Nutrients 14 04198 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
OverallFemaleMale
N258113091272
Age in years at screening (mean (SD))69.29 (6.74)69.33 (6.71)69.24 (6.78)
Age (%)
60–70 years1432 (55.5)722 (55.2)710 (55.8)
70–80 years746 (28.9)387 (29.6)359 (28.2)
≥80 years403 (15.6)200 (15.3)203 (16.0)
Race (%)
Mexican American236 (9.1)110 (8.4)126 (9.9)
Other Hispanic269 (10.4)141 (10.8)128 (10.1)
Non-Hispanic White1247 (48.3)660 (50.4)587 (46.1)
Non-Hispanic Black580 (22.5)279 (21.3)301 (23.7)
Other Race249 (9.6)119 (9.1)130 (10.2)
Ratio of family income to poverty (mean (SD))2.65 (1.61)2.53 (1.60)2.77 (1.61)
Poverty–income ratio ≥ 1 (%)1981 (83.8)973 (81.0)1008 (86.6)
Body Mass Index (mean (SD))29.05 (6.28)29.52 (6.91)28.56 (5.53)
Body mass index (%)
<25 kg/m2680 (26.7)355 (27.4)325 (25.9)
25–30 kg/m2917 (35.9)399 (30.8)518 (41.3)
≥30 kg/m2954 (37.4)542 (41.8)412 (32.8)
Diabetes (%)694 (26.9)329 (25.2)365 (28.7)
Had at least 12 alcohol drinks/year (%)1746 (68.8)707 (54.7)1039 (83.4)
Hypertension (%)1570 (60.9)834 (63.8)736 (58.0)
Marital status (%)
Widowed/divorced/separated/never married1067 (41.3)705 (53.8)362 (28.4)
Married/living with partner1514 (58.7)604 (46.2)910 (71.6)
Smoking status (%)
Never1295 (50.2)819 (62.6)476 (37.5)
Former962 (37.3)356 (27.2)606 (47.7)
Current322 (12.5)133 (10.2)189 (14.9)
Educational level (%)
Below high school634 (24.6)319 (24.4)315 (24.8)
High school606 (23.5)318 (24.3)288 (22.7)
Above high school1339 (51.9)672 (51.3)667 (52.5)
Total Cholesterol (mean (SD))192.24 (43.16)202.88 (41.71)181.28 (41.89)
Statin drugs used (%)1071 (41.5)502 (38.3)569 (44.7)
Data show number of subjects (percentage) or medians (interquartile ranges).
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the female population (N = 1309).
Table 2. Characteristics of the female population (N = 1309).
The Animal Fluency TestThe Digit Symbol Substitution TestThe CERAD TestThe Global Performance
Normal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep Value
N (%)922.00 (70.44)387.00 (29.56) 972.00 (74.26)337.00 (25.74) 947.00 (72.35)362 (27.65) 981 (74.94)328 (25.06)
Age in years at screening 269.22 (6.70)69.58 (6.74)0.369.17 (6.79)69.77 (6.45)0.08369.05 (6.75)70.06 (6.56)0.00969.12 (6.80)69.94 (6.41)0.024
Age (%) 1 0.4 >0.9 0.5 >0.9
60–70 years508.00 (55.10)214.00 (55.30) 534.00 (54.94)188.00 (55.79) 530.00 (55.97)192.00 (53.04) 541.00 (55.15)181.00 (55.18)
70–80 years 280.00 (30.37)107.00 (27.65) 290.00 (29.84)97.00 (28.78) 272.00 (28.72)115.00 (31.77) 290.00 (29.56)97.00 (29.57)
≥80 years134.00 (14.53)66.00 (17.05) 148.00 (15.23)52.00 (15.43) 145.00 (15.31)55.00 (15.19) 150.00 (15.29)50.00 (15.24)
Race (%) 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Mexican American75.00 (8.13)35.00 (9.04) 54.00 (5.56)56.00 (16.62) 69.00 (7.29)41.00 (11.33) 64.00 (6.52)46.00 (14.02)
Other Hispanic82.00 (8.89)59.00 (15.25) 74.00 (7.61)67.00 (19.88) 80.00 (8.45)61.00 (16.85) 77.00 (7.85)64.00 (19.51)
Non-Hispanic White536.00 (58.13)124.00 (32.04) 583.00 (59.98)77.00 (22.85) 507.00 (53.54)153.00 (42.27) 571.00 (58.21)89.00 (27.13)
Non-Hispanic Black157.00 (17.03)122.00 (31.52) 170.00 (17.49)109.00 (32.34) 203.00 (21.44)76.00 (20.99) 178.00 (18.14)101.00 (30.79)
Other Race72.00 (7.81)47.00 (12.14) 91.00 (9.36)28.00 (8.31) 88.00 (9.29)31.00 (8.56) 91.00 (9.28)28.00 (8.54)
Ratio of family income to poverty 22.72 (1.62)2.05 (1.45)<0.0012.85 (1.59)1.58 (1.20)<0.0012.72 (1.60)2.03 (1.48)<0.0012.78 (1.59)1.76 (1.39)<0.001
Poverty–income ratio (%) 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
≤0.99129.00 (15.09)99.00 (28.61) 108.00 (12.03)120.00 (39.60) 126.00 (14.53)102.00 (30.54) 116.00 (12.87)112.00 (37.33)
≥1726.00 (84.91)247.00 (71.39) 790.00 (87.97)183.00 (60.40) 741.00 (85.47)232.00 (69.46) 785.00 (87.13)188.00 (62.67)
Body mass index (%) 1 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7
<25 kg/m2252.00 (27.45)103.00 (27.25) 261.00 (26.91)94.00 (28.83) 255.00 (27.13)100.00 (28.09) 272.00 (27.93)83.00 (25.78)
25–30 kg/m2295.00 (32.14)104.00 (27.51) 306.00 (31.55)93.00 (28.53) 296.00 (31.49)103.00 (28.93) 301.00 (30.90)98.00 (30.43)
≥30 kg/m2371.00 (40.41)171.00 (45.24) 403.00 (41.55)139.00 (42.64) 389.00 (41.38)153.00 (42.98) 401.00 (41.17)141.00 (43.79)
Body Mass Index (kg/m2) 229.33 (6.74)29.99 (7.29)0.229.35 (6.78)30.03 (7.25)0.229.50 (6.98)29.59 (6.73)0.729.32 (6.86)30.12 (7.02)0.079
Diabetes (%)198.00 (21.48)131.00 (33.94)<0.001208.00 (21.40)121.00 (36.01)<0.001212.00 (22.41)117.00 (32.32)<0.001201.00 (20.51)128.00 (39.02)<0.001
Had at least 12 alcohol drinks/year (%) 1520.00 (57.21)187.00 (48.83)0.006576.00 (59.75)131.00 (39.94)<0.001534.00 (57.05)173.00 (48.60)0.006568.00 (58.44)139.00 (43.44)<0.001
Hypertension (%) 1558.00 (60.59)276.00 (71.50)<0.001593.00 (61.13)241.00 (71.51)<0.001593.00 (61.13)241.00 (71.51)0.3598.00 (61.02)236.00 (72.17)<0.001
Marital status (%) 1 0.036 <0.001 0.012 0.009
Widowed/divorced/separated/never married479.00 (51.95)225.00 (58.29) 494.00 (50.88)210.00 (62.31) 489.00 (51.69)215.00 (59.39) 507.00 (51.73)197.00 (60.06)
Married/living with partner443.00 (48.05)161.00 (41.71) 477.00 (49.12)127.00 (37.69) 457.00 (48.31)147.00 (40.61) 473.00 (48.27)131.00 (39.94)
Smoking status (%) 1 0.2 0.005 0.4 0.2
Never562.00 (61.02)257.00 (66.41) 587.00 (60.45)232.00 (68.84) 591.00 (62.47)228.00 (62.98) 604.00 (61.63)215.00 (65.55)
Former262.00 (28.45)94.00 (24.29) 287.00 (29.56)69.00 (20.47) 264.00 (27.91)92.00 (25.41) 280.00 (28.57)76.00 (23.17)
Current97.00 (10.53)36.00 (9.30) 97.00 (9.99)36.00 (10.68) 91.00 (9.62)42.00 (11.60) 96.00 (9.80)37.00 (11.28)
Educational level (%) 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Below high school169.00 (18.33)150.00 (38.76) 127.00 (13.07)192.00 (56.97) 172.00 (18.16)147.00 (40.61) 144.00 (14.68)175.00 (53.35)
High school219.00 (23.75)99.00 (25.58) 243.00 (25.00)75.00 (22.26) 228.00 (24.08)90.00 (24.86) 235.00 (23.96)83.00 (25.30)
Above high school534.00 (57.92)138.00 (35.66) 602.00 (61.93)70.00 (20.77) 547.00 (57.76)125.00 (34.53) 602.00 (61.37)70.00 (21.34)
Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) 2205.62 (41.43)196.36 (41.71)<0.001204.66 (40.52)197.75 (44.63)0.003204.41 (41.82)198.88 (41.22)0.039206.13 (41.15)193.17 (41.94)<0.001
Total Cholesterol (%) 1 0.002 0.003 0.14 <0.001
<174 mg/dL208.00 (22.56)120.00 (31.01) 221.00 (22.74)107.00 (31.75) 227.00 (23.97)101.00 (27.90) 215.00 (21.92)113.00 (34.45)
174–201 mg/dL232.00 (25.16)96.00 (24.81) 242.00 (24.90)86.00 (25.52) 230.00 (24.29)98.00 (27.07) 238.00 (24.26)90.00 (27.44)
201–229 mg/dL235.00 (25.49)98.00 (25.32) 265.00 (27.26)68.00 (20.18) 245.00 (25.87)88.00 (24.31) 265.00 (27.01)68.00 (20.73)
>229 mg/dL247.00 (26.79)73.00 (18.86) 244.00 (25.10)76.00 (22.55) 245.00 (25.87)75.00 (20.72) 263.00 (26.81)57.00 (17.38)
Statin drugs used (%) 1337.00 (36.55)165.00 (42.64)0.039362.00 (37.24)140.00 (41.54)0.2351.00 (37.06)151.00 (41.71)0.12353.00 (35.98)149.00 (45.43)0.002
Data show number of subjects (percentage) or medians (interquartile ranges); 1 Chi-square test was used to compare the percentage between participants with and without low cognitive performance; 2 Wilcoxon rank sum or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare the mean ± standard deviance values between participants with and without low cognitive performance.
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of the male population (N = 1272).
Table 3. Characteristics of the male population (N = 1272).
The Animal Fluency TestThe Digit Symbol Substitution TestThe CERAD TestThe Global Performance
Normal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep ValueNormal Cognitive PerformanceLow Cognitive Performancep Value
N (%)893 (70.20)379 (29.80) 939 (73.82)333 (26.18) 918 (72.17)354 (27.83) 952 (74.84)320 (25.16)
Age in years at screening 269.28 (6.73)69.16 (6.91)0.769.16 (6.78)69.48 (6.81)0.569.06 (6.78)69.73 (6.78)0.1269.17 (6.74)69.45 (6.91)0.6
Age (%) 1 0.4 >0.9 0.4 >0.9
60–70 years491.00 (54.98%)219.00 (57.78%) 525.00 (55.91%)185.00 (55.56%) 522.00 (56.86%)188.00 (53.11%) 531.00 (55.78%)179.00 (55.94%)
70–80 years262.00 (29.34%)97.00 (25.59%) 265.00 (28.22%)94.00 (28.23%) 250.00 (27.23%)109.00 (30.79%) 269.00 (28.26%)90.00 (28.12%)
≥80 years140.00 (15.68%)63.00 (16.62%) 149.00 (15.87%)54.00 (16.22%) 146.00 (15.90%)57.00 (16.10%) 152.00 (15.97%)51.00 (15.94%)
Race (%) 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Mexican American92.00 (10.30%)34.00 (8.97%) 79.00 (8.41%)47.00 (14.11%) 80.00 (8.71%)46.00 (12.99%) 85.00 (8.93%)41.00 (12.81%)
Other Hispanic85.00 (9.52%)43.00 (11.35%) 61.00 (6.50%)67.00 (20.12%) 80.00 (8.71%)48.00 (13.56%) 75.00 (7.88%)53.00 (16.56%)
Non-Hispanic White470.00 (52.63%)117.00 (30.87%) 511.00 (54.42%)76.00 (22.82%) 456.00 (49.67%)131.00 (37.01%) 504.00 (52.94%)83.00 (25.94%)
Non-Hispanic Black173.00 (19.37%)128.00 (33.77%) 175.00 (18.64%)126.00 (37.84%) 206.00 (22.44%)95.00 (26.84%) 188.00 (19.75%)113.00 (35.31%)
Other Race73.00 (8.17%)57.00 (15.04%) 113.00 (12.03%)17.00 (5.11%) 96.00 (10.46%)34.00 (9.60%) 100.00 (10.50%)30.00 (9.38%)
Ratio of family income to poverty 22.93 (1.62)2.40 (1.52)<0.0013.10 (1.58)1.85 (1.30)<0.0012.92 (1.61)2.38 (1.55)<0.0013.01 (1.59)2.04 (1.43)<0.001
Poverty-income ratio (%) 1 0.07 <0.001 0.008 <0.001
≤0.99101.00 (12.24%)55.00 (16.22%) 80.00 (9.27%)76.00 (25.25%) 100.00 (11.79%)56.00 (17.72%) 95.00 (10.80%)61.00 (21.48%)
≥1724.00 (87.76%)284.00 (83.78%) 783.00 (90.73%)225.00 (74.75%) 748.00 (88.21%)260.00 (82.28%) 785.00 (89.20%)223.00 (78.52%)
Body mass index (kg/m2) 228.74 (5.43)28.13 (5.74)0.0228.66 (5.51)28.28 (5.58)0.328.65 (5.41)28.32 (5.83)0.228.66 (5.42)28.28 (5.83)0.2
Body Mass Index (%) 1 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.8
<25 kg/m2217.00 (24.63%)108.00 (28.88%) 236.00 (25.46%)89.00 (27.13%) 230.00 (25.39%)95.00 (27.22%) 242.00 (25.77%)83.00 (26.27%)
25–30 kg/m2362.00 (41.09%)156.00 (41.71%) 383.00 (41.32%)135.00 (41.16%) 374.00 (41.28%)144.00 (41.26%) 384.00 (40.89%)134.00 (42.41%)
≥30kg/m2302.00 (34.28%)110.00 (29.41%) 308.00 (33.23%)104.00 (31.71%) 302.00 (33.33%)110.00 (31.52%) 313.00 (33.33%)99.00 (31.33%)
Diabetes (%) 1236.00 (26.43%)129.00 (34.04%)0.006235.00 (25.03%)130.00 (39.04%)<0.001257.00 (28.00%)108.00 (30.51%)0.4251.00 (26.37%)114.00 (35.62%)0.002
Had at least 12 alcohol drinks/year (%) 1748.00 (84.90%)291.00 (79.73%)0.025783.00 (84.65%)256.00 (79.75%)0.042765.00 (84.62%)274.00 (80.12%)0.056794.00 (84.65%)245.00 (79.55%)0.037
Hypertension (%) 1508.00 (56.95%)228.00 (60.32%)0.3529.00 (56.46%)207.00 (62.16%)0.07532.00 (58.02%)204.00 (57.79%)>0.9545.00 (57.31%)191.00 (59.87%)0.4
Marriage status (%) 1 0.2 <0.001 0.15 <0.001
Widowed/divorced/separated/never married244.00 (27.35%)117.00 (30.87%) 231.00 (24.63%)130.00 (39.04%) 250.00 (27.26%)111.00 (31.36%) 244.00 (25.66%)117.00 (36.56%)
Married/living with partner648.00 (72.65%)262.00 (69.13%) 707.00 (75.37%)203.00 (60.96%) 667.00 (72.74%)243.00 (68.64%) 707.00 (74.34%)203.00 (63.44%)
Smoking status (%) 1 0.093 <0.001 0.007 0.001
Never339.00 (38.00%)137.00 (36.15%) 370.00 (39.40%)106.00 (31.93%) 329.00 (35.88%)147.00 (41.53%) 365.00 (38.38%)111.00 (34.69%)
Former433.00 (48.54%)173.00 (45.65%) 459.00 (48.88%)147.00 (44.28%) 462.00 (50.38%)144.00 (40.68%) 465.00 (48.90%)141.00 (44.06%)
Current120.00 (13.45%)69.00 (18.21%) 110.00 (11.71%)79.00 (23.80%) 126.00 (13.74%)63.00 (17.80%) 121.00 (12.72%)68.00 (21.25%)
Educational Level (%) 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Below high school173.00 (19.37%)142.00 (37.67%) 123.00 (13.10%)192.00 (58.01%) 176.00 (19.19%)139.00 (39.38%) 150.00 (15.76%)165.00 (51.89%)
High school191.00 (21.39%)97.00 (25.73%) 214.00 (22.79%)74.00 (22.36%) 209.00 (22.79%)79.00 (22.38%) 219.00 (23.00%)69.00 (21.70%)
Above high school529.00 (59.24%)138.00 (36.60%) 602.00 (64.11%)65.00 (19.64%) 532.00 (58.02%)135.00 (38.24%) 583.00 (61.24%)84.00 (26.42%)
Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) 2182.95 (42.69)177.36 (39.72)0.081181.53 (41.96)180.58 (41.74)>0.9180.91 (42.42)182.25 (40.52)0.3181.00 (42.08)182.12 (41.37)0.4
Total Cholesterol (%) 1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.2
<151 mg/dL216.00 (24.19%)107.00 (28.23%) 235.00 (25.03%)88.00 (26.43%) 240.00 (26.14%)83.00 (23.45%) 251.00 (26.37%)72.00 (22.50%)
151–178 mg/dL224.00 (25.08%)95.00 (25.07%) 242.00 (25.77%)77.00 (23.12%) 227.00 (24.73%)92.00 (25.99%) 229.00 (24.05%)90.00 (28.12%)
178–208 mg/dL226.00 (25.31%)92.00 (24.27%) 237.00 (25.24%)81.00 (24.32%) 236.00 (25.71%)82.00 (23.16%) 245.00 (25.74%)73.00 (22.81%)
>208 mg/dL227.00 (25.42%)85.00 (22.43%) 225.00 (23.96%)87.00 (26.13%) 215.00 (23.42%)97.00 (27.40%) 227.00 (23.84%)85.00 (26.56%)
Statin drugs used (%) 1406.00 (45.46%)163.00 (43.01%)0.4426.00 (45.37%)143.00 (42.94%)0.4417.00 (45.42%)152.00 (42.94%)0.4441.00 (46.32%)128.00 (40.00%)0.049
Data show number of subjects (percentage) or medians (interquartile ranges); 1 Chi-square test was used to compare the percentage between participants with and without low cognitive performance; 2 Wilcoxon rank sum test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the mean ± standard deviance values between participants with and without low cognitive performance.
Table
Table 4. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol among female participants, NHANES 2011–2014 (N = 1309).
Table 4. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol among female participants, NHANES 2011–2014 (N = 1309).
Animal Fluency TestDSSTCERAD TestGlobal Cognitive Performance
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
0–1741.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)
174–2010.72 *
(0.52–0.99)		0.76
(0.53–1.10)		0.82
(0.56–1.20)		0.73
(0.52–1.03)		0.77
(0.50–1.19)		0.83
(0.53–1.29)		0.96
(0.69–1.34)		1.10
(0.76–1.58)		1.20
(0.83–1.76)		0.72
(0.52–1.00)		0.85
(0.57–1.26)		0.94
(0.62–1.42)
201–2290.72
(0.52–1.00)		0.80
(0.55–1.16)		0.88
(0.59–1.29)		0.53 ***
(0.37–0.75)		0.56 *
(0.35–0.87)		0.62 *
(0.39–0.99)		0.81
(0.58–1.13)		0.86
(0.59–1.25)		0.95
(0.64–1.41)		0.49 ***
(0.34–0.69)		0.50 **
(0.33–0.77)		0.58 *
(0.37–0.90)
>2290.51 ***
(0.36–0.72)		0.52 **
(0.35–0.77)		0.57 **
(0.38–0.85)		0.64 *
(0.45–0.91)		0.72
(0.46–1.13)		0.79
(0.50–1.26)		0.69 *
(0.48–0.97)		0.70
(0.48–1.04)		0.78
(0.52–1.16)		0.41 ***
(0.28–0.59)		0.34 ***
(0.22–0.54)		0.40 ***
(0.25–0.63)
ptrend<0.001<0.0030.0150.0030.0610.1770.0220.0420.134<0.001<0.001<0.001
Calculated using binary logistic regression; Reference (Ref.); Model 2 adjusted for age, education level, body mass index (BMI), marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty and race; Model 3 adjusted for age and race, educational level, marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty, body mass index (BMI), drinking status, smoking status, hypertension, and diabetes. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol among male participants, NHANES 2011–2014 (N = 1272).
Table 5. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol among male participants, NHANES 2011–2014 (N = 1272).
Animal Fluency TestDSSTCERAD TestGlobal Cognitive Performance
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
0–1511.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)
151–1780.86
(0.61–1.19)		0.78
(0.54–1.14)		0.80
(0.54–1.18)		0.85
(0.60–1.21)		0.97
(0.62–1.53)		1.16
(0.72–1.85)		1.17
(0.83–1.66)		1.10
(0.76–1.61)		1.16
(0.78–1.72)		1.37
(0.96–1.96)		1.45
(0.95–2.22)		1.51
(0.97–2.34)
178–2080.82
(0.59–1.15)		0.75
(0.51–1.08)		0.79
(0.53–1.17)		0.91
(0.64–1.30)		0.96
(0.61–1.51)		1.25
(0.77–2.03)		1.00
(0.70–1.43)		0.91
(0.61–1.34)		0.93
(0.61–1.40)		1.04
(0.72–1.50)		0.97
(0.63–1.50)		1.09
(0.69–1.74)
>2080.76
(0.54–1.06)		0.70
(0.47–1.02)		0.76
(0.51–1.15)		1.03
(0.73–1.46)		0.99
(0.63–1.56)		1.26
(0.78–2.06)		1.30
(0.92–1.85)		1.26
(0.86–1.85)		1.30
(0.86–1.96)		1.31
(0.91–1.88)		1.23
(0.80–1.90)		1.36
(0.86–2.16)
ptrend0.1070.0630.2060.7770.9430.3250.2460.4330.3920.3770.7340.416
Calculated using binary logistic regression; Reference (Ref.); Model 2 adjusted for age, education level, body mass index (BMI), marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty, and race; Model 3 adjusted for age and race, educational level, marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty, body mass index (BMI), drinking status, smoking status, hypertension, and diabetes.
Table
Table 6. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol in different education sub-groups among female participants.
Table 6. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for four dimensions of cognitive performance across quartiles of total cholesterol in different education sub-groups among female participants.
Animal Fluency TestDSSTCERAD TestGlobal Cognitive Performance
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Less than 9th grade0–1741.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)
174–2010.54
(0.29–1.01)		0.49 *
(0.24–0.99)		0.58
(0.28–1.19)		0.78
(0.42–1.46)		0.57
(0.26–1.24)		0.62
(0.27–1.41)		1.42
(0.77–2.63)		1.43
(0.72–2.85)		1.57
(0.76–3.28)		0.93
(0.51–1.73)		0.98
(0.49–2.00)		1.08
(0.51–2.31)
201–2291.21
(0.66–2.25)		1.43
(0.71–2.91)		1.60
(0.76–3.42)		0.69
(0.37–1.30)		0.68
(0.30–1.53)		0.66
(0.28–1.58)		1.59
(0.86–2.95)		1.59
(0.78–3.29)		1.66
(0.77–3.59)		1.05
(0.57–1.95)		1.36
(0.65–2.91)		1.56
(0.71–3.51)
>2290.54 *
(0.29–0.98)		0.63
(0.32–1.24)		0.64
(0.31–1.30)		0.76
(0.41–1.40)		0.74
(0.34–1.62)		0.84
(0.37–1.89)		0.93
(0.51–1.70)		1.06
(0.53–2.11)		1.24
(0.60–2.57)		0.60
(0.33–1.10)		0.54
(0.26–1.09)		0.63-
(0.30–1.31)
9–11th grade0–1741.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)
174–2011.11
(0.60–2.08)		1.02
(0.52–2.01)		1.14
(0.56–2.33)		0.75
(0.38–1.48)		0.70
(0.32–1.50)		0.71
(0.32–1.58)		1.22
(0.64–2.35)		1.24
(0.63–2.45)		1.46
(0.72–2.99)		0.83
(0.44–1.57)		0.86
(0.43–1.71)		1.06
(0.52–2.20)
201–2290.61
(0.30–1.21)		0.51
(0.23–1.10)		0.60
(0.26–1.36)		0.51
(0.23–1.07)		0.40 *
(0.16–0.96)		0.49
(0.19–1.20)		0.93
(0.46–1.86)		0.90
(0.42–1.91)		1.11
(0.50–2.46)		0.35 **
(0.16–0.73)		0.27 **
(0.11–0.64)		0.35 *
(0.13–0.83)
>2290.75
(0.37–1.53)		0.53
(0.22–1.21)		0.60
(0.24–1.44)		1.00
(0.48–2.07)		0.88
(0.37–2.05)		1.10
(0.45–2.63)		0.86
(0.40–1.79)		0.69
(0.29–1.58)		0.83
(0.34–1.95)		0.59
(0.28–1.22)		0.44
(0.18–1.02)		0.54
(0.22–1.30)
above 11th grade0–1741.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)		1.00
(Ref.)
174–2010.74
(0.44–1.26)		0.71
(0.39–1.26)		0.68
(0.37–1.23)		1.09
(0.57–2.11)		0.98
(0.46–2.10)		1.06
(0.48–2.34)		0.74
(0.43–1.27)		0.72
(0.40–1.27)		0.78
(0.44–1.40)		0.68
(0.37–1.26)		0.56
(0.28–1.11)		0.59
(0.29–1.18)
201–2290.72
(0.43–1.20)		0.73
(0.41–1.29)		0.78
(0.43–1.42)		0.60
(0.29–1.22)		0.67
(0.30–1.46)		0.74
(0.33–1.67)		0.58 *
(0.33–0.99)		0.55 *
(0.31–0.98)		0.61
(0.33–1.11)		0.37 **
(0.18–0.71)		0.33 **
(0.15–0.68)		0.37 *
(0.16–0.78)
>2290.47 **
(0.27–0.81)		0.47 *
(0.25–0.86)		0.47 *
(0.25–0.90)		0.52
(0.24–1.09)		0.63
(0.28–1.43)		0.65
(0.28–1.53)		0.57 *
(0.32–0.98)		0.52 *
(0.29–0.93)		0.57
(0.31–1.04)		0.18 ***
(0.07–0.40)		0.14 ***
(0.05–0.35)		0.15 ***
(0.05–0.38)
Calculated using binary logistic regression; Reference (Ref.); Model 2 adjusted for age, education level, body mass index (BMI), marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty and race; Model 3 adjusted for age and race, educational level, marriage status, ratio of family income to poverty, body mass index (BMI), drinking status, smoking status, hypertension, and diabetes. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pang, K.; Liu, C.; Tong, J.; Ouyang, W.; Hu, S.; Tang, Y. Higher Total Cholesterol Concentration May Be Associated with Better Cognitive Performance among Elderly Females. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4198. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194198

AMA Style

Pang K, Liu C, Tong J, Ouyang W, Hu S, Tang Y. Higher Total Cholesterol Concentration May Be Associated with Better Cognitive Performance among Elderly Females. Nutrients. 2022; 14(19):4198. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194198

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pang, Ke, Chunxia Liu, Jianbin Tong, Wen Ouyang, Shuntong Hu, and Yongzhong Tang. 2022. "Higher Total Cholesterol Concentration May Be Associated with Better Cognitive Performance among Elderly Females" Nutrients 14, no. 19: 4198. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194198

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop