Older Men Who Use Computers Have Lower Risk of Dementia

To report the distribution of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores by age and educational level. National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program surveys conducted between 1980 and 1984. Community populations in New Haven, Conn; Baltimore, Md; St Louis, Mo; Durham, NC; and Los Angeles, Calif. A total of 18,056 adult participants selected by probability sampling within census tracts and households. Summary scores for the MMSE are given in the form of mean, median, and percentile distributions specific for age and educational level. The MMSE scores were related to both age and educational level. There was an inverse relationship between MMSE scores and age, ranging from a median of 29 for those 18 to 24 years of age, to 25 for individuals 80 years of age and older. The median MMSE score was 29 for individuals with at least 9 years of schooling, 26 for those with 5 to 8 years of schooling, and 22 for those with 0 to 4 years of schooling. Cognitive performance as measured by the MMSE varies within the population by age and education. The cause of this variation has yet to be determined. Mini-Mental State Examination scores should be used to identify current cognitive difficulties and not to make formal diagnoses. The results presented should prove to be useful to clinicians who wish to compare an individual patient's MMSE scores with a population reference group and to researchers making plans for new studies in which cognitive status is a variable of interest.

Current and future estimates of Alzheimer disease (AD) are essential for public health planning. To provide prevalence estimates of AD for the US population from 2000 through 2050. Alzheimer disease incidence estimates from a population-based, biracial, urban study, using a stratified random sampling design, were converted to prevalence estimates and applied to US Census Bureau estimates of US population growth. A geographically defined community of 3 adjacent neighborhoods in Chicago, Ill, applied to the US population. Alzheimer disease incidence was measured in 3838 persons free of AD at baseline; 835 persons were evaluated for disease incidence. Main Outcome Measure Current and future estimates of prevalence of clinically diagnosed AD in the US population. In 2000, there were 4.5 million persons with AD in the US population. By 2050, this number will increase by almost 3-fold, to 13.2 million. Owing to the rapid growth of the oldest age groups of the US population, the number who are 85 years and older will more than quadruple to 8.0 million. The number who are 75 to 84 years old will double to 4.8 million, while the number who are 65 to 74 years old will remain fairly constant at 0.3 to 0.5 million. The number of persons with AD in the US population will continue to increase unless new discoveries facilitate prevention of the disease.

Cognitive training has been shown to improve cognitive abilities in older adults but the effects of cognitive training on everyday function have not been demonstrated. To determine the effects of cognitive training on daily function and durability of training on cognitive abilities. Five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled single-blind trial with 4 treatment groups. A volunteer sample of 2832 persons (mean age, 73.6 years; 26% black), living independently in 6 US cities, was recruited from senior housing, community centers, and hospitals and clinics. The study was conducted between April 1998 and December 2004. Five-year follow-up was completed in 67% of the sample. Ten-session training for memory (verbal episodic memory), reasoning (inductive reasoning), or speed of processing (visual search and identification); 4-session booster training at 11 and 35 months after training in a random sample of those who completed training. Self-reported and performance-based measures of daily function and cognitive abilities. The reasoning group reported significantly less difficulty in the instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) than the control group (effect size, 0.29; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.55). Neither speed of processing training (effect size, 0.26; 99% CI, -0.002 to 0.51) nor memory training (effect size, 0.20; 99% CI, -0.06 to 0.46) had a significant effect on IADL. The booster training for the speed of processing group, but not for the other 2 groups, showed a significant effect on the performance-based functional measure of everyday speed of processing (effect size, 0.30; 99% CI, 0.08-0.52). No booster effects were seen for any of the groups for everyday problem-solving or self-reported difficulty in IADL. Each intervention maintained effects on its specific targeted cognitive ability through 5 years (memory: effect size, 0.23 [99% CI, 0.11-0.35]; reasoning: effect size, 0.26 [99% CI, 0.17-0.35]; speed of processing: effect size, 0.76 [99% CI, 0.62-0.90]). Booster training produced additional improvement with the reasoning intervention for reasoning performance (effect size, 0.28; 99% CI, 0.12-0.43) and the speed of processing intervention for speed of processing performance (effect size, 0.85; 99% CI, 0.61-1.09). Reasoning training resulted in less functional decline in self-reported IADL. Compared with the control group, cognitive training resulted in improved cognitive abilities specific to the abilities trained that continued 5 years after the initiation of the intervention. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00298558.