Systematic examination of methodological inconsistency in operationalizing cognitive reserve and its impact on identifying predictors of late-life cognition

Kerry A Howard,Lauren Massimo,Sarah F Griffin,Ryan J Gagnon,Lu Zhang,Lior Rennert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04263-9

2023-09-09

Abstract:Background: Cognitive reserve (CR) is the ability to maintain cognitive performance despite brain pathology. CR is built through lifecourse experiences (e.g., education) and is a key construct in promoting healthy aging. However, the operationalization of CR and its estimated association with late-life cognition varies. The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the operationalization of CR and the relationship between its operationalization and late-life cognition. Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of experiences (proxies) used to operationalize CR. The review informed quantitative analyses using data from 1366 participants of the Memory and Aging Project to examine 1) relationships between proxies and 2) the relationship between operationalization and late-life cognition. We also conducted a factor analysis with all identified CR experiences to create a composite lifecourse CR score. Generalized linear mixed models examined the relationship between operationalizations and global cognition, with secondary outcomes of five domains of cognition to examine consistency. Results: Based on a review of 753 articles, we found the majority (92.3%) of the 28 commonly used proxies have weak to no correlation between one another. There was substantial variability in the association between operationalizations and late-life global cognition (median effect size: 0.99, IQR: 0.34 to 1.39). There was not strong consistency in the association between CR operationalizations and the five cognitive domains (mean consistency: 56.1%). The average estimate for the 28 operationalizations was 0.91 (SE = 0.48), compared to 2.48 (SE = 0.40) for the lifecourse score and it was associated with all five domains of cognition. Conclusions: Inconsistent methodology is theorized as a major limitation of CR research and barrier to identification of impactful experiences for healthy cognitive aging. Based on the weak associations, it is not surprising that the relationship between CR and late-life cognition is dependent on the experience used to operationalize CR. Scores using multiple experiences across the lifecourse may help overcome such limitations. Adherence to a lifecourse approach and collaborative movement towards a consensus operationalization of CR are imperative shifts in the study of CR that can better inform research on risk factors related to cognitive decline and ultimately aid in the promotion of healthy aging.