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.

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 58 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Potentially modifiable lifestyle factors may influence cognitive health in later life and offer potential to reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. The concept of cognitive reserve has been proposed as a mechanism to explain individual differences in rates of cognitive decline, but its potential role as a mediating pathway has seldom been explored using data from large epidemiological studies. We explored the mediating effect of cognitive reserve on the cross-sectional association between lifestyle factors and cognitive function in later life using data from a population-based cohort of healthy older people. Methods and findings We analysed data from 2,315 cognitively healthy participants aged 65 y and over in the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study Wales (CFAS-Wales) cohort collected in 2011-2013. Linear regression modelling was used to investigate the overall associations between five lifestyle factors-cognitive and social activity, physical activity, diet, alcohol consumption, and smoking-and cognition, adjusting for demographic factors and chronic conditions. Mediation analysis tested for indirect effects of the lifestyle factors on cognition via cognitive reserve. After controlling for age, gender, and the presence of chronic conditions, cognitive and social activity, physical activity, healthy diet, and light-to-moderate alcohol consumption were positively associated with cognitive function, together accounting for 20% (95% CI 17%-23%) of variance in cognitive test scores. Cognitive reserve was an important mediator of this association, with indirect effects via cognitive reserve contributing 21% (95% CI 15%-27%) of the overall effect on cognition. The main limitations of the study derive from the cross-sectional nature of the data and the challenges of accurately measuring the latent construct of cognitive reserve. Conclusions Cross-sectional associations support the view that enhancing cognitive reserve may benefit cognition, and maintenance of cognitive health may be supported by a healthy and active lifestyle, in later life.

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

APA 7th

Clare, L., Wu, Y. T., Teale, J. C., MacLeod, C., Matthews, F., Brayne, C., et al. (2017). Potentially modifiable lifestyle factors, cognitive reserve, and cognitive function in later life: A cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002259

Vancouver

Clare L, Wu YT, Teale JC, MacLeod C, Matthews F, Brayne C, et al. Potentially modifiable lifestyle factors, cognitive reserve, and cognitive function in later life: A cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2017. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002259. PMID: 28323829.

BibTeX

@article{clare2017-28323829,
  author  = {Clare, L. and Wu, Y. T. and Teale, J. C. and MacLeod, C. and Matthews, F. and Brayne, C. and Woods, B. and {CFAS-Wales study team}},
  title   = {{Potentially modifiable lifestyle factors, cognitive reserve, and cognitive function in later life: A cross-sectional study}},
  journal = {PLoS medicine},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1002259},
  pmid    = {28323829},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002259}
}

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

Why it matters

In 2,315 cognitively healthy people aged 65 and over in Wales, those who were more mentally, socially and physically active, ate a healthier diet, or drank light-to-moderate amounts of alcohol scored higher on cognitive tests. Together these factors accounted for 20% of the differences in scores, and about a fifth of their link with cognition ran through "cognitive reserve". Because everything was measured at one point in time, the study cannot show that these habits cause better thinking or prevent dementia, and the authors note that cognitive reserve is hard to measure accurately.

Study details

How this study scored 58/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 6 of 7; Citations per year 4 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 3 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 56 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 58 of 100. Total 58 of 100.56 of the 96 points we could judge = 58 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 58 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS medicine)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 PLoS Medicine: journal h-index 350 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
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 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 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 6 / 7 Cited 325 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 4 / 5 29.5 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 16.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 2 / 6 Cited by 6 other studies in this library
Still being cited 3 / 4 Cited 130 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of Cambridge: institution h-index 1,973 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28323829)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 56 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 58 out of 100.
Total 58 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

6 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Prevention and risk

Also tagged “controlled”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →