Cognitive Impairment

Cognitive impairment refers to a decline in one or more cognitive domains, such as memory, attention, executive function, language, or visuospatial skills, compared to an individual’s previous level of functioning. This decline can range from mild, barely noticeable changes to severe forms that significantly interfere with daily life. While some degree of cognitive change can occur with normal aging, more pronounced impairment often signals underlying neurological or medical conditions. Research indicates that cognitive function, and consequently its impairment, has a substantial genetic component, with common genetic variations across the genome contributing to a conservatively estimated SNP heritability of 21.5% for general cognitive function^[1].

The biological basis of cognitive impairment is complex, involving intricate neural networks and molecular pathways within the brain. Genetic variations, particularly single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), can influence these pathways, impacting processes such as neurodevelopment, synaptic plasticity, neurotransmission, and neuroinflammation. Gene-based analyses have identified significant loci associated with general cognitive function on chromosomes 17q21.31, 17p13.1, and 1p13.3^[1]. Further SNP-based meta-analyses have identified specific SNPs in genomic regions including 6q16.1, 14q12, and 19q13.32 as being associated with general cognitive function at a genome-wide significance level ^[1]. These genetic factors interact with environmental influences and lifestyle choices to determine an individual’s cognitive trajectory.

Clinically, cognitive impairment is a hallmark or risk factor for numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), vascular dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and other neurodegenerative conditions. Understanding its genetic underpinnings is crucial for early detection, accurate diagnosis, prognostication, and the development of targeted therapeutic interventions. Identifying individuals at higher genetic risk allows for potential preventative strategies or earlier clinical monitoring.

The social importance of addressing cognitive impairment is immense. It represents a significant public health challenge, particularly given the global aging population. Cognitive decline impacts an individual’s quality of life, independence, and ability to participate in society, often placing a considerable burden on caregivers and healthcare systems. Research into the genetic architecture of cognitive impairment is vital for informing public health policies, developing effective treatments, and ultimately improving the well-being of affected individuals and their communities.

Limitations of Research on Cognitive Impairment

Research into cognitive impairment, while providing crucial insights, is subject to several methodological and contextual limitations that warrant careful consideration when interpreting findings. These limitations span study design, measurement approaches, and the scope of generalizability, all of which can influence the accuracy and completeness of our understanding.

Methodological and Statistical Constraints

The present studies, despite leveraging large combined sample sizes, still face statistical constraints that impact the scope of discovery and the reliability of effect size estimates. The individual effects of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on complex traits like cognitive function are typically very small, necessitating even larger sample sizes for comprehensive identification of genome-wide significant findings. This challenge suggests that current discoveries represent only a fraction of the underlying genetic architecture. Furthermore, the “winners’ curse” phenomenon implies that initial effect size estimates reported in discovery studies may be inflated, leading to a reduction in observed effect sizes in subsequent independent replication cohorts. This underscores the need for continuous expansion of sample sizes and rigorous replication to refine our understanding of genetic associations.

Phenotypic Variability and Measurement Challenges

A significant limitation arises from the inherent variability in the assessment of cognitive function across different studies and participants. The inclusion of subjects with a wide age range, both across and within cohorts, introduces complexity, as genetic influence on cognitive ability can vary across the lifespan, potentially being reduced in early childhood and adolescence relative to adulthood. Moreover, late-life cognitive decline may involve distinct molecular pathways, which could dilute or mask specific genetic effects when analyzing broad age ranges. The use of widely disparate neurocognitive test batteries across cohorts further contributes to noise in estimating general cognitive ability, as the shared variance captured by these tests can be heterogeneous and vary in reliability, potentially leading to an underestimation of true cognitive ability scores.

Generalizability and Unaddressed Complexities

The generalizability of findings is constrained by the demographic composition of the study populations, predominantly focusing on individuals of European ancestry. This limits the direct applicability of results to other diverse human populations and highlights the critical need to explore genetic risk factors for cognitive impairment in distinct ancestral groups. Such research is essential for developing targeted interventions that are effective across different demographic segments. Additionally, while attempts are made to control for confounding variables like age, the intricate interplay of genetic and environmental factors, including gene-environment interactions, remains largely unexplored. The existence of numerous small genetic effects, coupled with the influence of unmeasured environmental or lifestyle factors, points to significant remaining knowledge gaps in fully elucidating the complex etiology of cognitive impairment.

Variants

Genetic variations, often called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), play a significant role in individual differences in cognitive function and susceptibility to neurodegenerative conditions. These variants can influence gene activity, protein function, and biological pathways critical for brain health, ultimately contributing to aspects of cognitive impairment.

The APOEgene, located on chromosome 19, is central to lipid metabolism and transport in the brain, where it is crucial for neuronal repair, synaptic plasticity, and the clearance of amyloid-beta plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. Thers429358 variant is a key component of the APOEε4 allele, which is recognized as the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. This allele is associated with a less stable APOE protein that is less efficient at clearing amyloid-beta, leading to increased neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. Studies have linkedrs429358 to measures of cognitive function, such as the RAVLT, and evidence suggests its involvement in DNA methylation-mediated modification of gene expression, further highlighting its role in cognitive decline ^[1].

Other variants contribute to cognitive function through their roles in metabolic and cellular processes. The AGXT2 gene encodes an enzyme involved in L-arginine metabolism and detoxification pathways. Variants like rs37371 and rs344515 may alter AGXT2 activity, potentially affecting nitric oxide production—vital for cerebral blood flow—and creatine synthesis, which is important for brain energy buffering. Similarly, the BDH1 gene produces an enzyme critical for ketone body metabolism, providing an alternative energy source for the brain. The rs2484 variant in BDH1 could influence the efficiency of ketone utilization, impacting brain energy supply and neuronal resilience under metabolic stress. Dysregulation in these metabolic pathways can contribute to deficits in memory, attention, and overall cognitive processing.

Variants in genes with diverse cellular functions also influence cognitive health. SMYD3 is a histone methyltransferase that epigenetically regulates gene expression, and its rs7512924 variant may alter this activity, affecting genes crucial for neuronal function, learning, and memory. SPSB1 is involved in regulating immune responses and inflammation; the rs11121365 variant could modulate neuroinflammation, a significant factor in cognitive decline. ADARB2 is an RNA-editing enzyme that modifies RNA sequences, impacting protein function and RNA processing; its rs10903488 variant could disrupt these vital regulatory processes in the nervous system. Lastly, NECTIN2 is a cell adhesion molecule important for synaptic formation and neuronal communication; the rs6857 variant could affect its function, thereby influencing synaptic integrity and cognitive functions like learning and memory.

Beyond protein-coding genes, variants in non-coding regions and pseudogenes also play a role. The rs17090219 variant is located in a region encompassing LINC01539 (a long non-coding RNA) and TXNL1 (a gene involved in redox regulation). This variant could impact the regulatory functions of LINC01539 or alter TXNL1 expression, affecting cellular redox balance, which is crucial for neuronal health. Another non-coding region variant, rs117129097 , is found between LINC02441 and LINC02369, two other long non-coding RNAs known to regulate gene expression and chromatin remodeling. Alterations in these lncRNAs can disrupt neural circuits and contribute to cognitive deficits. Finally, the rs74717330 variant is located near PKMP4 (a pseudogene) and HNF4G (a transcription factor involved in metabolism). While PKMP4 may have regulatory roles, the variant could also influence HNF4G expression, indirectly affecting brain health through systemic metabolic pathways.

Key Variants

RS ID	Gene	Related Traits
rs429358	APOE	cerebral amyloid deposition measurement Lewy body dementia, Lewy body dementia measurement high density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement platelet count neuroimaging measurement
rs37371 rs344515	AGXT2	serum homoarginine amount metabolite measurement X-24518 measurement serum metabolite level cognitive impairment
rs6857	NECTIN2	frontotemporal dementia neurofibrillary tangles measurement neuritic plaque measurement dementia, Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change cerebral amyloid angiopathy
rs17090219	LINC01539 - TXNL1	cognitive impairment
rs117129097	LINC02441 - LINC02369	cognitive impairment
rs11121365	SPSB1	cognitive impairment
rs10903488	ADARB2	cognitive impairment
rs74717330	PKMP4 - HNF4G	cognitive impairment
rs2484	BDH1	cognitive impairment
rs7512924	SMYD3	cognitive impairment

Classification, Definition, and Terminology

Definition:Cognitive impairment refers to a decline in cognitive functions such as memory, thinking, and reasoning. A specific classification, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), is defined as a state where individuals are rated as cognitively impaired by a neuropsychologist but do not meet the criteria for dementia as determined by an examining physician^[2].

Classifications and Related Terminology: The continuum of cognitive health and decline includes several classifications:

Cognitively Normal (CN): Individuals whose cognitive functions are within expected age-related parameters ^[3].
Significant Memory Concern (SMC): Individuals who express subjective concerns about their memory ^[3].
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI):A transitional stage between normal cognitive aging and dementia. It involves noticeable cognitive decline that does not significantly interfere with daily life^[2]. MCI can be further categorized into:
- Early Mild Cognitive Impairment (EMCI): An initial stage of MCI ^[3].
- Late Mild Cognitive Impairment (LMCI): A more advanced stage of MCI ^[3].
Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD):Dementia represents a more severe decline in cognitive function that significantly impacts daily activities. The clinical diagnoses of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are made following specific recommendations from expert working groups^[4]. Alzheimer’s disease is a common cause of dementia^[3].

Cognitive Domains and Assessment: Cognitive function is often assessed across multiple domains, which can be summarized to provide a global cognitive assessment. These domains include ^[2]:

Episodic memory
Visuospatial ability
Perceptual speed
Semantic memory
Working memory

Additionally, cognitive test performance can be analyzed based on factors such as ^[5]:

Verbal Memory (F1)
Visual Memory and Organization (F2)
Attention and Executive Function, often assessed through tests like Trails A and B (F3)

Signs and Symptoms: Cognitive Impairment (General Fluid Cognitive Function Phenotype)

The general fluid cognitive function phenotype describes an individual’s overall cognitive abilities, reflecting performance across several distinct cognitive domains. This phenotype is constructed to represent a broad range of higher-level cognitive processes ^[6].

Typical Presentations

Individuals demonstrating higher general fluid cognitive function typically exhibit better performance across multiple cognitive tasks. These tasks assess various domains such as working memory, verbal declarative memory, and processing speed ^[6]. For instance, strong performance might be observed in tasks like digit span (for working memory), logical memory (for verbal declarative memory), and digit symbol coding (for processing speed) ^[6]. Other commonly assessed areas include verbal memory for words, visual memory, word reading, semantic fluency, verbal memory for stories, vocabulary, phonemic fluency, and performance on the trail-making test ^[6]. A higher score on these tests generally indicates higher cognitive function ^[6].

Measurement Approaches

The general fluid cognitive function phenotype is systematically constructed from scores on a battery of cognitive tasks. To establish this measure, studies require administering tasks that test at least three different cognitive domains ^[6]. Alternatively, a validated g-sensitive measure can be used ^[6].

The process involves:

Task Selection: Cognitive tasks are chosen to cover various domains. Examples include digit span, logical memory, and digit symbol coding, as well as verbal memory, visual memory, word reading, semantic and phonemic fluency, vocabulary, and the trail-making test ^[6].
Score Adjustment: Individual test scores are adjusted using multiple regression to account for factors such as age, sex, and their interactions (age², sex, age × sex, and age² × sex interaction terms) ^[6].
Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Principal component analysis is applied to these adjusted cognitive task scores. The score on the first unrotated principal component is then used as the measure of general cognitive function ^[6]. This component is confirmed to reflect higher cognitive function with higher test scores ^[6].
Reliability: The average internal consistency across test batteries has been observed to be 71% (with a standard deviation of ± 12%) ^[6]. A methodological illustration using two non-overlapping batteries of cognitive tests showed a correlation of 0.79 between the general fluid cognitive ability components, indicating substantial overlap and consistency ^[6].

Variability

There is inherent variability in the measurement and presentation of this phenotype across different studies. Cohorts often utilize different batteries of cognitive tests, which contributes to phenotypic heterogeneity ^[6]. Despite these differences, the first unrotated principal component typically accounts for a significant portion of the total cognitive test variance, ranging from 33.7% to 62.3% (with a mean of 49.6%) across various cohorts ^[6]. In overall test performance, this principal component accounts for approximately 42% (with a standard deviation of ± 11%) of the variance ^[6].

Causes of Cognitive Impairment

Cognitive impairment results from a combination of genetic and environmental influences that affect the brain’s function over time.

Genetic Factors

Genetic factors play a role in the rate of age-related cognitive decline. Research suggests that a core genetic network may impact an individual’s susceptibility to this decline ^[7].

Specific genetic variants associated with cognitive decline include:

CR1 gene: Polymorphisms in the CR1 gene are linked to amyloid plaque burden and age-related cognitive decline ^[8].
rs10808746 : This genetic variant influences the expression of two adjacent genes, PDE7A and MTFR1, which are considered potential regulators of inflammation and oxidative injury. This variant has shown consistent effects in studies on age-related cognitive decline ^[7].
Aggregate genetic risk:While known susceptibility loci for cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and inflammatory diseases were not significantly associated with cognitive decline in one cohort, the use of intermediate phenotypes combined with larger sample sizes may help identify specific susceptibility loci and molecular pathways involved in neuronal injury related to age-related cognitive decline^[7].

Environmental and Lifestyle Factors

Cognitively stimulating activities:Engaging in activities that stimulate the brain has been associated with the risk of incident Alzheimer’s disease^[9].

Cognitive impairment involves complex biological processes influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. It is characterized by a decline in cognitive abilities, often associated with aging and various forms of brain pathology.

Core Cellular Pathways in Brain Pathology

Research suggests that common genetic pathways mediate the brain’s response and adaptation to diverse forms of pathology. Several core cellular pathways are implicated in multiple neurodegenerative diseases and neuronal injury paradigms:

Autophagy: This cellular process involves the degradation and recycling of cellular components, essential for maintaining neuronal health ^[10].
Inflammation: Immune activation in the brain, or neuroinflammation, plays a significant role in both brain aging and neurodegeneration ^[11].
Protein Misfolding/Aggregation: The accumulation of misfolded or aggregated proteins is a common feature in many neurodegenerative conditions.
Mitochondrial Dynamics: Proper functioning and dynamics of mitochondria are crucial for neuronal energy production and overall cellular health.

Interacting Pathologies and Risk Factors

Age-related cognitive decline often results from the interaction of multiple brain pathologies rather than a single cause. Autopsy studies of dementia frequently reveal multiple contributing pathologies in individuals at the time of death.

Beyond direct brain pathologies, several common adult illnesses and risk factors are implicated in age-related cognitive decline:

Type II diabetes
Cerebrovascular disease and other cardiovascular risk factors
Inflammatory disorders ^[11]

Vascular-related brain injury, for example, is thought to promote the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology or its clinical manifestations^[12].

Genetic Influence and Molecular Mechanisms

Studies of elder twins indicate a substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in later life ^[13], suggesting that a core genetic network may impact susceptibility to the rate of age-related cognitive decline. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been successful in identifying susceptibility genes for complex human traits, including neurological disorders.

Specific molecular and cellular pathways have been identified as enriched in cognitive decline and related conditions:

Lipid/Cholesterol Metabolism: Pathways related to lipid and cholesterol metabolism are enriched in both age-related cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility.
Protein Kinase Signaling Processes: These pathways are also enriched in analyses for both cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease.
Immune Processes: While immune processes are generally implicated, there can be a polarization. For instance, complement activation, interferon-mediated immunity, and NF-kappaB cascade pathways are enriched in Alzheimer’s disease GWAS but not consistently for loci associated with cognitive decline. This suggests that innate immunity may play a proportionally more significant role in Alzheimer’s disease compared to aging-related cognitive decline.
Canonical Pathways from GWAS: In a GWAS of general cognitive function, top canonical pathways identified include inositol pyrophosphates biosynthesis, tRNA charging, Ga12/13 signaling, IL-15 production, and the role of NFAT in immune regulation ^[1].

Pathways and Mechanisms

Cognitive impairment is influenced by a complex interplay of molecular and physiological mechanisms, often involving multiple pathologies that interact to produce clinical manifestations. Research suggests that common genetic pathways mediate the brain’s response and adaptation to various forms of brain pathology, impacting age-related cognitive decline.

Several core cellular pathways have been identified as playing important roles in neurodegenerative diseases and neuronal injury, which can contribute to cognitive decline:

Protein misfolding and aggregation: The accumulation of misfolded or aggregated proteins is a significant factor ^[14].
Mitochondrial dynamics: The processes controlling the shape, fusion, and fission of mitochondria are crucial for neuronal health ^[15].

Genetic studies have identified specific molecular networks and pathways associated with cognitive function. A highly ranked network involved 58 molecules with CDK2 as a central hub. Another network included RHOA, NUPR1, and SRF as multi-connected hubs. These networks, when combined, are associated with fundamental biological processes such as cell cycle regulation, cell death and survival, and gene expression ^[1].

Canonical pathways implicated in cognitive function include:

Inositol pyrophosphates biosynthesis ^[1]
tRNA charging ^[1]
Ga12/13 signaling ^[1]
IL-15 production ^[1]
The role of NFAT in immune regulation ^[1].

Other physiological factors also contribute to cognitive impairment. Insulin resistance has been linked to reductions in regional cerebral glucose metabolism similar to those seen in Alzheimer’s disease in cognitively normal adults with prediabetes or early type 2 diabetes^[16]. Diabetes itself is associated with cognitive impairment^[17]. Additionally, the complement receptor 1 (CR1) is associated with amyloid plaque burden and age-related cognitive decline ^[8].

Clinical Relevance

Cognitive impairment, particularly in the context of conditions like Alzheimer’s disease (AD), presents a considerable public health concern. Understanding the factors that contribute to cognitive decline is crucial for clinical applications and prognostic assessment.

Cognitive decline is often multifactorial, with various adult illnesses implicated in its development. These include:

Type II diabetes ^[17]
Cerebrovascular disease^[18]
Inflammatory disorders ^[11]

It is suggested that different forms of brain injury may interact, leading to an acceleration of cognitive decline. There is also substantial variability in the cognitive trajectories observed among individuals experiencing cognitive deterioration.

Frequently Asked Questions About Cognitive Impairment

These questions address the most important and specific aspects of cognitive impairment based on current genetic research.

1. If memory issues run in my family, am I doomed?

No, you are not doomed. While cognitive function has a substantial genetic component, with about 21.5% of general cognitive function linked to common genetic variations, your genes don’t tell the whole story. Lifestyle choices and environmental factors play a crucial role in how these genetic predispositions manifest. Understanding your family history can help you take proactive steps.

2. I’m young, but my memory feels off sometimes. Is that normal?

It depends. While some cognitive changes are normal, genetic factors influence cognitive ability throughout your life, not just in old age. Subtle changes in memory and attention can be influenced by your unique genetic makeup, impacting processes like neurodevelopment and synaptic plasticity. It’s an interaction between your genes and daily experiences.

3. Why does my grandparent stay sharp while another struggles?

Individual differences in cognitive trajectories are common and are influenced by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Some individuals may have genetic variations, like specific versions of the APOE gene (e.g., the ε4 allele), that increase their risk for cognitive decline. Others might have protective genetic profiles or have benefited more from positive lifestyle choices throughout their lives.

4. Can my diet or exercise really protect my brain?

Yes, absolutely. Your genetic makeup provides a foundation, but it interacts significantly with environmental influences and lifestyle choices, including diet and exercise. These factors can influence important biological pathways in the brain, such as neuroinflammation and synaptic plasticity, helping to mitigate genetic risks and support long-term cognitive health.

5. Is a genetic test useful if I’m worried about my memory?

A genetic test can be useful for identifying certain risk factors, such as the APOEε4 allele, which is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Knowing your genetic risk can inform discussions with your doctor about potential preventative strategies or earlier clinical monitoring. However, it’s important to remember that genetic risk is not a definitive diagnosis, as many factors contribute to cognitive health.

6. Does my ethnic background affect my risk for memory problems?

Yes, it can. Research on the genetic risk factors for cognitive impairment has predominantly focused on individuals of European ancestry. This means that the genetic risk factors and their prevalence can differ significantly across various ethnic groups. More research is needed to fully understand these differences and develop targeted interventions for all populations.

7. I’m finding work tasks harder. Is this just stress?

It could be stress, but it’s important to consider other factors as well. Cognitive impairment can manifest as a decline in executive function or attention, which might make work tasks more challenging. Your underlying genetic architecture can influence the resilience and efficiency of your neural networks, and these genetic factors interact with environmental influences, including stress, to affect your cognitive performance.

8. My sibling seems to remember everything, but I don’t. Why?

Even siblings, who share much of their genetic material, have unique genetic variations and different life experiences. These subtle genetic differences, along with varying environmental exposures and lifestyle choices, can lead to distinct cognitive profiles. This complexity highlights how individual genetic variations influence processes like neurodevelopment and synaptic plasticity differently in each person.

9. Why do some people never seem to get memory problems?

Some individuals may have a genetic makeup that provides greater resilience against cognitive decline, or they may have benefited from a combination of protective lifestyle factors throughout their lives. While genetic variations play a significant role, the complex interplay of numerous small genetic effects, along with positive environmental influences, can contribute to maintaining robust cognitive function well into old age.

10. Can I truly overcome a family history of memory decline?

While you cannot change your genes, you absolutely can influence your cognitive trajectory. Genetic factors interact strongly with your environment and lifestyle choices. By adopting healthy habits, you can potentially mitigate some of the genetic risks and support your brain’s health, allowing for potential preventative strategies and earlier monitoring to improve your long-term well-being.

This FAQ was automatically generated based on current genetic research and may be updated as new information becomes available.

Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a healthcare provider for personalized medical guidance.

References

[1] Davies, G., et al. “GWAS of general cognitive function.” Molecular Psychiatry (2015): 183–192.

[2] Bennett, David A. et al. “Mild cognitive impairment: a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.”Neurobiol Aging, vol. 23, no. 4, 2002, pp. 583–592.

[3] Deters, Emily R. et al. “Language decline in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal investigation.”Brain Lang, 2018.

[4] McKhann, Guy et al. “Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease.”Neurology, vol. 34, no. 7, 1984, pp. 939–944.

[5] Cox, Natalie et al. “Genetic variants influencing cognitive function and their relationship with Alzheimer’s disease.”Neurobiol Aging, 2015.

[6] Seshadri, S., et al. “Definition and Assessment of General Fluid Cognitive Function Phenotypes.” BMC Medical Genetics, vol. 8, no. Suppl 1, 2007, p. S15.

[7] De Jager, P. L., Shulman, J. M., Chibnik, L. B., et al. “A genome-wide scan for common variants affecting the rate of age-related cognitive decline.” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 33, 2012, pp. 1017.e1–1017.e15.

[8] Chibnik, L. B., et al. “CR1 is associated with amyloid plaque burden and age-related cognitive decline.” Ann Neurol. 2011 n/a-n/a.

[9] Wilson, R. S., Mendes De Leon, C. F., Barnes, L. L., et al. “Participation in cognitively stimulating activities and risk of incident Alzheimer disease.”JAMA, vol. 287, 2002, pp. 742–748.

[10] Martinez-Vicente, Maria, and Ana Maria Cuervo. “Autophagy and neurodegeneration: when the cleaning crew goes on strike.” Lancet Neurology, vol. 6, no. 4, 2007, pp. 352-61.

[11] Lucin, K. M., and T. Wyss-Coray. “Immune activation in brain aging and neurodegeneration: too much or too little?” Neuron, vol. 64, 2009, pp. 110–122.

[12] Launer, Lenore J., et al. “AD brain pathology: vascular origins? Results from the HAAS autopsy study.” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 29, no. 10, 2008, pp. 1587-90.

[13] McClearn, Gerald E., et al. “Substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in twins 80 or more years old.” Science, vol. 276, no. 5318, 1997, pp. 1560-3.

[14] Ross, C. A., and M. A. Poirier. “Protein aggregation and neurodegenerative disease.”J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 26.8 (2004): 1044-1080.

[15] Cho, D-H., et al. “Mitochondrial dynamics in cell death and neurodegeneration.” Cell Mol Life Sci. 67.20 (2010): 3435–47.

[16] Baker, L. D., et al. “Insulin resistance and Alzheimer-like reductions in regional cerebral glucose metabolism for cognitively normal adults with prediabetes or early type 2 diabetes.”Arch. Neurol. 68 (2011): 51–57.

[17] Croxson, S. C., and C. Jagger. “Diabetes and cognitive impairment: a community-based study of elderly subjects.”Age Ageing. 24.5 (1995): 421–4.

[18] Desmond, D. W., et al. “Frequency and clinical determinants of dementia after ischemic stroke.”Neurology, vol. 54, 2000, pp. 1124–1131.