Home › Research › Prevention trials
Modifiable risk factor profiles moderate the effect of β-amyloid pathology on cognition in aging
Mohini Bhade, Stefania Pezzoli, Joseph Giorgio, Tyler J Ward, Joseph R Winer, Theresa M Harrison, Susan M Landau, William J Jagust. Neurobiology of aging, 2025-05-15
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Although modifiable risk factors may account for around 40 % of population variability in dementia risk, the effect of risk factor interrelationships on pathology-cognition relationships is poorly understood. Using risk factor data from a cohort of 203 cognitively normal older adults (73 ± 6.4 years, 56 % female), we used k-means clustering to assign participants to one of three risk-related profiles; namely, positive-active (physical/cognitive activity, education), positive-affective (sleep, depression, personality), and negative multi-domain clusters. Linear mixed-effects models showed an attenuated effect of β-amyloid on non-memory cognition decline in positive profiles (positive-active: β=3.7, p = 0.008, positive-affective: β=3.7, p = 0.007) compared to the negative profile. While a significant entorhinal tau x time effect (p < 0.001) was observed in a model predicting episodic memory decline, cluster membership did not modify this relationship. These findings suggest that different risk profiles moderate pathology-cognition relationships, and highlight the role of groups of modifiable resilience factors in mitigating the effects of β-amyloid deposition.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bhade, M., Pezzoli, S., Giorgio, J., Ward, T. J., Winer, J. R., Harrison, T. M., et al. (2025). Modifiable risk factor profiles moderate the effect of β-amyloid pathology on cognition in aging. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.05.001
Vancouver
Bhade M, Pezzoli S, Giorgio J, Ward TJ, Winer JR, Harrison TM, et al. Modifiable risk factor profiles moderate the effect of β-amyloid pathology on cognition in aging. Neurobiology of aging. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.05.001. PMID: 40441049.
BibTeX
@article{bhade2025-40441049,
author = {Bhade, Mohini and Pezzoli, Stefania and Giorgio, Joseph and Ward, Tyler J and Winer, Joseph R and Harrison, Theresa M and Landau, Susan M and Jagust, William J},
title = {{Modifiable risk factor profiles moderate the effect of β-amyloid pathology on cognition in aging}},
journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.05.001},
pmid = {40441049},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.05.001}
}
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
- Linear mixed-effects models showed an attenuated effect of β-amyloid on non-memory cognition decline in positive profiles (positive-active: β=3.7, p = 0.008, positive-affective: β=3.7, p = 0.007) compared to the negative profile.
- While a significant entorhinal tau x time effect (p < 0.001) was observed in a model predicting episodic memory decline, cluster membership did not modify this relationship.
- These findings suggest that different risk profiles moderate pathology-cognition relationships, and highlight the role of groups of modifiable resilience factors in mitigating the effects of β-amyloid deposition.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 40441049) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.