The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physical and cognitive functioning of people older than 90 years: a comparison of two Danish cohorts born 10 years apart
Open accessAbstract
Summary Background A rapidly increasing proportion of people in high-income countries are surviving into their tenth decade. Concern is widespread that the basis for this development is the survival of frail and disabled elderly people into very old age. To investigate this issue, we compared the cognitive and physical functioning of two cohorts of Danish nonagenarians, born 10 years apart. Methods People in the first cohort were born in 1905 and assessed at age 93 years (n=2262); those in the second cohort were born in 1915 and assessed at age 95 years (n=1584). All cohort members were eligible irrespective of type of residence. Both cohorts were assessed by surveys that used the same design and assessment instrument, and had almost identical response rates (63%). Cognitive functioning was assessed by mini-mental state examination and a composite of five cognitive tests that are sensitive to age-related changes. Physical functioning was assessed by an activities of daily living score and by physical performance tests (grip strength, chair stand, and gait speed). Findings The chance of surviving from birth to age 93 years was 28% higher in the 1915 cohort than in the 1905 cohort (6·50% vs 5·06%), and the chance of reaching 95 years was 32% higher in 1915 cohort (3·93% vs 2·98%). The 1915 cohort scored significantly better on the mini-mental state examination than did the 1905 cohort (22·8 [SD 5·6] vs 21·4 [6·0]; p<0·0001), with a substantially higher proportion of participants obtaining maximum scores (28–30 points; 277 [23%] vs 235 [13%]; p<0·0001). Similarly, the cognitive composite score was significantly better in the 1915 than in the 1905 cohort (0·49 [SD 3·6] vs 0·01 [SD 3·6]; p=0·0003). The cohorts did not differ consistently in the physical performance tests, but the 1915 cohort had significantly better activities of daily living scores than did the 1905 cohort (2·0 [SD 0·8] vs 1·8 [0·7]; p<0·0001). Interpretation Despite being 2 years older at assessment, the 1915 cohort scored significantly better than the 1905 cohort on both the cognitive tests and the activities of daily living score, which suggests that more people are living to older ages with better overall functioning. Funding Danish National Research Foundation; US National Institutes of Health—National Institute on Aging; Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; VELUX Foundation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mortality and Morbidity Trends: Is There Compression of Morbidity?
Crimmins, E. M., & Beltran-Sanchez, H. (2011) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq088 · Cited by 694
Seeman, T. E., Merkin, S. S., Crimmins, E. M., & Karlamangla, A. S. (2010) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2008.157388 · Cited by 356
Cohort differences in cognitive aging and terminal decline in the Seattle Longitudinal Study.
Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Hoppmann, C., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (2011) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023426 · Cited by 154
An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence
Schaie, K. W., Willis, S. L., & Pennak, S. (2005) · Research in Human Development · doi:10.1080/15427609.2005.9683344 · Cited by 110
Cited by
2016 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures
Alzheimer's Association (2016) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.001 · Cited by 5,069
Facing up to the global challenges of ageing
Partridge, L., Deelen, J., & Slagboom, P. E. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0457-8 · Cited by 1,475
Matthews, F. E., Arthur, A., Barnes, L. E., Bond, J., Jagger, C., Robinson, L., & Brayne, C. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61570-6 · Cited by 1,155
A Comparison of the Prevalence of Dementia in the United States in 2000 and 2012
Langa, K. M., Larson, E. B., Crimmins, E. M., Faul, J. D., Levine, D. A., Kabeto, M. U., & Weir, D. R. (2017) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6807 · Cited by 910
Zeng, Y., Feng, Q., Hesketh, T., Christensen, K., & Vaupel, J. W. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30548-2 · Cited by 837
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Christensen, K., Thinggaard, M., Oksuzyan, A., Steenstrup, T., Andersen-Ranberg, K., Jeune, B., McGue, M., & Vaupel, J. W.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 382
- Issue
- 9903
- Pages
- 1507-1513
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2133489234
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.