Back

Association of cognitive impairment with adverse childhood experiences: 2019 Results from 21 states

Adams, M. L.; Grandpre, J.

2025-11-06 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.11.05.25339606 medRxiv
Show abstract

Our objective was to assess associations between 8 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as a child, or living in household with substance abuse, mental health problems, divorce, intimate partner violence, or incarceration) and subjective cognitive impairment (SCI: the disability question from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Surveys) and compare with cardiovascular disease (CVD) results. MethodsAdults (N=149,801) from 21 states with data on ACEs were studied using Stata in unadjusted and adjusted analysis controlled for demographics, selected health measures, CVD, and 6 CVD risk factors (smoking, overweight, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and inadequate physical activity). ResultsMean number of ACEs ranged from 0.8 among adults age 75+ to 2.2 for adults 18-34 years and 3.0 for adults with SCI. Prevalence rates were 12.6% for SCI, increasing with both number of ACES and CVD risk factors and 9.4% for CVD, only increasing with more CVD risk factors. Among age groups, SCI was highest for adults 18-24 years (17.2%) and lowest for those 65-74 years 9.4%) while CVD was highest among adults age 75+ (26.5%) and lowest for those 18-24 years (1.1%). Most results were confirmed by logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for SCI for each added ACE = 1.20 (95% CI 1.17-1.23) and each added CVD risk factor =1.10 (1.06-1.14) and for CVD AOR= 1.06 (1.03-1.08) for each added ACE and 1.42 (1.38-1.46) for each added risk factor. ConclusionResults suggest that ACEs may be a factor contributing to higher rates of SCI among younger vs. older adults.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.