Cited by 98Coffee research and impactsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNutritional Studies and Diet

Gender Differences in Tea, Coffee, and Cognitive Decline in the Elderly: The Cardiovascular Health Study

Open access
Arab, Lenore, Biggs, Mary L., O'Meara, Ellen S., Longstreth, W.T., Crane, Paul K., Fitzpatrick, Annette L.·2011·Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

Abstract

Although caffeine can enhance cognitive function acutely, long-term effects of consumption of caffeine-containing beverages such as tea and coffee are uncertain. Data on 4,809 participants aged 65 and older from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) were used to examine the relationship of consumption of tea and coffee, assessed by food frequency questionnaire, on change in cognitive function by gender. Cognitive performance was assessed using serial Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examinations, which were administered annually up to 9 times. Linear mixed models were used to estimate rates of change in standard 3MS scores and scores modeled using item response theory (IRT). Models were adjusted for age, education, smoking status, clinic site, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, coronary heart disease, depression score, and APOE genotype. Over the median 7.9 years of follow-up, participants who did not consume tea or coffee declined annually an average of 1.30 points (women) and 1.11 points (men) on standard 3MS scores. In fully adjusted models using either standard or IRT 3MS scores, we found modestly reduced rates of cognitive decline for some, but not all, levels of coffee and tea consumption for women, with no consistent effect for men. Caffeine consumption was also associated with attenuation in cognitive decline in women. Dose-response relationships were not linear. These longitudinal analyses suggest a somewhat attenuated rate of cognitive decline among tea and coffee consumers compared to non-consumers in women but not in men. Whether this association is causal or due to unmeasured confounding requires further study.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/jad-2011-110431

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Samejima F van der Linden WJ Hambleton RK Graded response model Handbook of modern item response theory 1997 85 100 Springer NY

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arab, L., Biggs, M. L., O'Meara, E. S., Longstreth, W. T., Crane, P. K., & Fitzpatrick, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
  • Departments of Neurology, Epidemiology and Medicine at University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Corresponding author
Arab, Lenore
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Published
2011-11-29
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
553-566
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W2109230018
Cited by
98
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc085082-026, n01hc085081-021, n01hc045133-001, n01hc085079-024, n01hc015103-009, n01hc085084-005, n01cn015103-001, n01hc085085-011, n01hc085083-027, n01hc085080-026, n01hc085086-022, n01hc55222-0-0-0, n01hc075150-004, n01hc035129-010)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG 20098, R01AG020098, AG023269, AG027058, R56AG020098, R01AG023629, R01AG015928, R01AG027058, P30AG024827)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01 HC085086, N0-1-HC-85239, N01 HC085079, N01 HC085083, N01HC‐75150, N01 HC85086, N01 HC085080, N01 HC035129, HL-075366, N01 HC015103, N01 HC55222, R01HL075366, N01 HC085085, HHSN268201200036C, N01HC085082, U01HL080295, N01 HC055222, N01 HC085081, HL080295, R01HL080295, N01 HC075150, N01 HC085084, N01 HC045133, N01-HC85079)
  • National Cancer Institute (N01 CN015103)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
tea consumption, coffee consumption
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cardiovascular Diseases, Coffee, Cognition Disorders, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Prospective Studies, Sex Characteristics, Tea, Cohort Studies

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