Objectives To examine the association between intelligence measured in childhood and leading causes of death in men and women over the life course. Design Prospective cohort study based on a whole population of participants born in Scotland in 1936 and linked to mortality data across 68 years of follow-up. Setting Scotland. Participants 33 536 men and 32 229 women who were participants in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1947 (SMS1947) and who could be linked to cause of death data up to December 2015. Main outcome measures Cause specific mortality, including from coronary heart disease, stroke, specific cancer types, respiratory disease, digestive disease, external causes, and dementia. Results Childhood intelligence was inversely associated with all major causes of death. The age and sex adjusted hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) per 1 SD (about 15 points) advantage in intelligence test score were strongest for respiratory disease (0.72, 0.70 to 0.74), coronary heart disease (0.75, 0.73 to 0.77), and stroke (0.76, 0.73 to 0.79). Other notable associations (all P<0.001) were observed for deaths from injury (0.81, 0.75 to 0.86), smoking related cancers (0.82, 0.80 to 0.84), digestive disease (0.82, 0.79 to 0.86), and dementia (0.84, 0.78 to 0.90). Weak associations were apparent for suicide (0.87, 0.74 to 1.02) and deaths from cancer not related to smoking (0.96, 0.93 to 1.00), and their confidence intervals included unity. There was a suggestion that childhood intelligence was somewhat more strongly related to coronary heart disease, smoking related cancers, respiratory disease, and dementia in women than men (P value for interactions <0.001, 0.02, <0.001, and 0.02, respectively).Childhood intelligence was related to selected cancer presentations, including lung (0.75, 0.72 to 0.77), stomach (0.77, 0.69 to 0.85), bladder (0.81, 0.71 to 0.91), oesophageal (0.85, 0.78 to 0.94), liver (0.85, 0.74 to 0.97), colorectal (0.89, 0.83 to 0.95), and haematopoietic (0.91, 0.83 to 0.98). Sensitivity analyses on a representative subsample of the cohort observed only small attenuation of the estimated effect of intelligence (by 10-26%) after adjustment for potential confounders, including three indicators of childhood socioeconomic status. In a replication sample from Scotland, in a similar birth year cohort and follow-up period, smoking and adult socioeconomic status partially attenuated (by 16-58%) the association of intelligence with outcome rates. Conclusions In a whole national population year of birth cohort followed over the life course from age 11 to age 79, higher scores on a well validated childhood intelligence test were associated with lower risk of mortality ascribed to coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers related to smoking (particularly lung and stomach), respiratory diseases, digestive diseases, injury, and dementia.
BackgroundSedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor.MethodsCross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss.ResultsAll self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics.ConclusionSelf-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-018-0652-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
We examined the association between neuroticism and mortality in a sample of 321,456 people from UK Biobank and explored the influence of self-rated health on this relationship. After adjustment for age and sex, a 1-SD increment in neuroticism was associated with a 6% increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = [1.03, 1.09]). After adjustment for other covariates, and, in particular, self-rated health, higher neuroticism was associated with an 8% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = [0.89, 0.95]), as well as with reductions in mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease, but not external causes. Further analyses revealed that higher neuroticism was associated with lower mortality only in those people with fair or poor self-rated health, and that higher scores on a facet of neuroticism related to worry and vulnerability were associated with lower mortality. Research into associations between personality facets and mortality may elucidate mechanisms underlying neuroticism’s covert protection against death.
This study presents an evaluation of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) within the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The study reports the results of a reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis of the CoI survey instrument using the data of 1,487 students from five MOOC courses. The findings confirmed the reliability and validity of the CoI survey instrument for the assessment of the key dimensions of the CoI model: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Although the CoI survey instrument captured the same latent constructs within the MOOC context as in the Garrison's three-factor model (Garrison et al., 1999), analyses suggested a six-factor model with additional three factors as a better fit to the data. These additional factors were 1) course organization and design (a sub-component of teaching presence), 2) group affectivity (a sub-component of social presence), and 3) resolution phase of inquiry learning (a sub-component of cognitive presence). The emergence of these additional factors revealed that the discrepancies between the dynamics of the traditional online courses and MOOCs affect the student perceptions of the three CoI presences. Based on the results of our analysis, we provide an update to the famous CoI model which captures the distinctive characteristics of the CoI model within the MOOC setting. The results of the study and their implications are further discussed.
The Seniors USP study measured sedentary behaviour (activPAL3, 9 day wear) in older adults. The measurement protocol had three key characteristics: enabling 24-hour wear (monitor location, waterproofing); minimising data loss (reducing monitor failure, staff training, communication); and quality assurance (removal by researcher, confidence about wear). Two monitors were not returned; 91% (n=700) of returned monitors had 7 valid days of data. Sources of data loss included monitor failure (n=11), exclusion after quality assurance (n=5), early removal for skin irritation (n=8) or procedural errors (n=10). Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in large studies requires decisional trade-offs between data quantity (collecting representative data) and utility (derived outcomes that reflect actual behaviour).
This study highlights the importance of education in later life and that early life experiences can delay later compromised cognitive health. This study also demonstrates the feasibility and benefit in conducting coordinated analysis across multiple studies to validate findings.
Introduction Numerous dementia risk prediction models have been developed in the past decade. However, methodological limitations of the analytical tools used may hamper their ability to generate reliable dementia risk scores. We aim to review the used methodologies. Methods We systematically reviewed the literature from March 2014 to September 2018 for publications presenting a dementia risk prediction model. We critically discuss the analytical techniques used in the literature. Results In total 137 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Three techniques were identified as the most commonly used methodologies: machine learning, logistic regression, and Cox regression. Discussion We identified three major methodological weaknesses: (1) over‐reliance on one data source, (2) poor verification of statistical assumptions of Cox and logistic regression, and (3) lack of validation. The use of larger and more diverse data sets is recommended. Assumptions should be tested thoroughly, and actions should be taken if deviations are detected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.