↓ Skip to main content

Association of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thinning With Current and Future Cognitive Decline: A Study Using Optical Coherence Tomography

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Neurology, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
139 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Association of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thinning With Current and Future Cognitive Decline: A Study Using Optical Coherence Tomography
Published in
JAMA Neurology, October 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1578
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fang Ko, Zaynah A. Muthy, John Gallacher, Cathie Sudlow, Geraint Rees, Qi Yang, Pearse A. Keane, Axel Petzold, Peng T. Khaw, Charles Reisman, Nicholas G. Strouthidis, Paul J. Foster, Praveen J. Patel

Abstract

Identifing potential screening tests for future cognitive decline is a priority for developing treatments for and the prevention of dementia. To examine the potential of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurement in identifying those at greater risk of cognitive decline in a large community cohort of healthy people. UK Biobank is a prospective, multicenter, community-based study of UK residents aged 40 to 69 years at enrollment who underwent baseline retinal optical coherence tomography imaging, a physical examination, and a questionnaire. The pilot study phase was conducted from March 2006 to June 2006, and the main cohort underwent examination for baseline measures from April 2007 to October 2010. Four basic cognitive tests were performed at baseline, which were then repeated in a subset of participants approximately 3 years later. We analyzed eyes with high-quality optical coherence tomography images, excluding those with eye disease or vision loss, a history of ocular or neurological disease, or diabetes. We explored associations between RNFL thickness and cognitive function using multivariable logistic regression modeling to control for demographic as well as physiologic and ocular variation. Odds ratios (ORs) for cognitive performance in the lowest fifth percentile in at least 2 of 4 cognitive tests at baseline, or worsening results on at least 1 cognitive test at follow-up. These analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, height, refraction, intraocular pressure, education, and socioeconomic status. A total of 32 038 people were included at baseline testing, for whom the mean age was 56.0 years and of whom 17 172 (53.6%) were women. A thinner RNFL was associated with worse cognitive performance on baseline assessment. A multivariable regression controlling for potential confounders showed that those in the thinnest quintile of RNFL were 11% more likely to fail at least 1 cognitive test (95% CI, 2.0%-2.1%; P = .01). Follow-up cognitive tests were performed for 1251 participants (3.9%). Participants with an RNFL thickness in the 2 thinnest quintiles were almost twice as likely to have at least 1 test score be worse at follow-up cognitive testing (quintile 1: OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.29-2.85; P < .001; quintile 2: OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.40-3.08; P < .001). A thinner RNFL is associated with worse cognitive function in individuals without a neurodegenerative disease as well as greater likelihood of future cognitive decline. This preclinical observation has implications for future research, prevention, and treatment of dementia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 59 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 25%
Psychology 13 7%
Neuroscience 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 66 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 240. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#158,882
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#212
of 5,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,092
of 355,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#5
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.