alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Genetics

Instrumental variable approaches to identifying the causal effect of educational attainment on dementia risk

Nguyen TT, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Kawachi I, Gilman SE, Walter S, Liu SY, Manly JJ, Glymour MM.. Annals of epidemiology, 2015-10-30

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Purpose Education is an established correlate of cognitive status in older adulthood, but whether expanding educational opportunities would improve cognitive functioning remains unclear given limitations of prior studies for causal inference. Therefore, we conducted instrumental variable (IV) analyses of the association between education and dementia risk, using for the first time in this area, genetic variants as instruments as well as state-level school policies. Methods IV analyses in the Health and Retirement Study cohort (1998-2010) used two sets of instruments: (1) a genetic risk score constructed from three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; n = 7981); and (2) compulsory schooling laws (CSLs) and state school characteristics (term length, student teacher ratios, and expenditures; n = 10,955). Results Using the genetic risk score as an IV, there was a 1.1% reduction in dementia risk per year of schooling (95% confidence interval, -2.4 to 0.02). Leveraging compulsory schooling laws and state school characteristics as IVs, there was a substantially larger protective effect (-9.5%; 95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -4.2). Analyses evaluating the plausibility of the IV assumptions indicated estimates derived from analyses relying on CSLs provide the best estimates of the causal effect of education. Conclusions IV analyses suggest education is protective against risk of dementia in older adulthood.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Nguyen, T. T., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., Kawachi, I., Gilman, S. E., Walter, S., Liu, S. Y., et al. (2016). Instrumental variable approaches to identifying the causal effect of educational attainment on dementia risk. Annals of epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.006

Vancouver

Nguyen TT, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Kawachi I, Gilman SE, Walter S, Liu SY, et al. Instrumental variable approaches to identifying the causal effect of educational attainment on dementia risk. Annals of epidemiology. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.006. PMID: 26633592.

BibTeX

@article{nguyen2016-26633592,
  author  = {Nguyen, T. T. and Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. and Kawachi, I. and Gilman, S. E. and Walter, S. and Liu, S. Y. and Manly, J. J. and Glymour, M. M.},
  title   = {{Instrumental variable approaches to identifying the causal effect of educational attainment on dementia risk}},
  journal = {Annals of epidemiology},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.006},
  pmid    = {26633592},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.006}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Annals of epidemiology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 7,981 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26633592)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 31 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Genetics

Also in Genetics

212 studies in the library are filed under Genetics with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Genetics hub.

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →