This is a cross-sectional study of data from the general population based cohort study” Good Aging in Skåne” (GÅS), being performed at the Department of Geriatric Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden [16]. In total 2931 subjects 60 to 93 years of age living in five municipalities in urban and rural areas in the south of Sweden were included from February 2001 to July 2004. They were randomly selected from the national Swedish population register. Home visits were offered to subjects unable to visit the research center. The participants underwent a comprehensive health examination by a physician, registered nurse and psychological test administrator, including medical examination, medical history, physical examination, neuropsychological testing, anthropometrics, interview and self-reported questionnaires and biobanking. The participants’ mean age at baseline was 71.5 years (SD 10.3 years). The participation rate at baseline was 60%. Information on diseases was based on medical records, medical history and examination by a physician based on the ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for dementia.
Kidney function
Blood samples were taken nonfasted by a nurse and cryopreserved at baseline. Cystatin C was analyzed as one batch in 2007 by hospital laboratory using Gentians reagent with a Beckman Coulter LX 20. Creatinine was also analyzed as one batch the same year by hospital laboratory using a modified Jaffe method with a Beckman Coulter LX 20 traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) [17]. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for both creatinine and cystatine C was calculated using the well-established and reliable chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation [18]. The mean for eGFRcrea and eGFRcyst was used, since this mean has been proven more reliable than either estimate separate [19].
Cognitive function
The participants underwent a test battery of neuropsychological tests. The tests were performed during 1.5 h conducted by a study trained test administrator with a bachelor’s degree in behavioral sciences. The tests included the cognitive domains complex attention, executive function, learning and memory, language, perceptual-motor, described in the widely accepted and frequently applied DSM-5 [20]. Beyond these cognitive domains, global cognitive function and meta-memory were also tested.
Global cognitive function was assessed using mini mental state examination (MMSE) [21]
Immediate memory, a subdomain to the cognitive domain learning and memory in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the digit span forward test [22]. The participant was asked to repeat a number combination between 2 and 8 numbers ranging from 1 to 9. The longest correct recalled digit span was used for assessment.
Recent memory, a subdomain to the cognitive domain learning and memory in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the tests free recall and recognition [23]. In the test free recall 16 unrelated words were presented to the participant. The participant then had 2 min to freely recall as many words he/she could remember. The number of correct recalled words was used for assessment. In the recognition test the 16 words from the test free recall were presented again mixed with 16 new unrelated words. The task for the participant was to identify which words had been presented in the test free recall. The number of correct recognized words minus the number of incorrect words (false hits) was used for assessment.
Expressive language, a subdomain to the cognitive domain language in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the tests word fluency F and A and word fluency animals and occupations [22]. In word fluency F and A, the participant was assigned to name as many words he/she could come up with that started with the letter F and then the letter A. 1 min was given for each letter. For word fluency animals and occupations, the participants were instructed to name as many animals as possible in 1 min and then as many occupations as possible in 1 min. The mean for the number of words from F and A, and animals and occupations, was used for assessment.
The speed of processing, a subdomain to the cognitive domain complex attention in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the tests digit cancellation [24] and pattern comparison [25]. In digit cancellation, 11 rows of random numbers between 1 and 9 was presented to the participant on a piece of paper. The task was to draw a line over as many fours as possible during 30 s. The number of correct lines was used for assessment. For pattern comparison columns with figures in pairs were presented to the participant on a piece of paper. The task was, during 2 × 30 s, to decide if the figures in each pair was identical or not. The number of correct answers was used for assessment.
Mental flexibility, a subdomain to the cognitive domain executive function in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the trail making test (TMT) A and B [22]. In TMT A the participant was instructed to draw lines in numeric order between circles containing numbers on a piece of paper (1–2-3 and so on). In TMT B the participant was instructed to draw lines in the same way, but in this test the circles contained both numbers and letters. The task was to draw lines between the circles containing numbers and letters alternating between numeric and alphabetic order (1-A-2-B and so on). The participants had no time limit. Participants who had one error or more in either TMT A or TMT B were excluded. When individuals finished TMT A faster than 7 s or TMT B faster than 12 s, that is > two SD from mean, suspicion of misprint in documentation was evoked, and those individuals were excluded. In total 595 individuals were excluded from the test. In order to measure mental flexibility, but avoid measuring the speed of perception, the time it took for the participant to finish TMT A was subtracted from the time it took to finish TMT B (TMT B-A) and used for assessment [26].
Working memory, a subdomain to executive function in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the digit span backwards test [27]. In this oral test the participant was instructed to repeat a number combination of 2–8 numbers ranging from 1 to 9 backwards. The best result was used for assessment.
Visual perception, a subdomain to the perceptual-motor domain in DSM-5 [20], was assessed using the mental rotations test. The test was a simplified version, with 10 assignments [28], of the Shepard-Metzler test [29]. In each assignment a 3-dimensional figure of cubes was presented to the left on a piece of paper, with 3 rotated figures to the right. Only one of the 3 rotated figures was identical to the figure to the left. The assignment was to choose the identical, but rotated figure. The participant was given 45 s for each assignment. The number of correct answers divided with the number of answered assignments was used for assessment.
Meta-memory was assessed using a confidence judgement test [30]. In this test the participant was presented with 10 general questions on a piece of paper and was assigned to choose 1 of 2 written answers to each question. The questions were of the following kind:” From which language does the word” alcohol” originate? A Greek B Arabic”. The participant thereafter was assigned to report how” certain” he/she was of have answered each of the questions correctly, by choosing a denary in percent between 50 and 100%, where 50% represented total uncertainty and 100% represented complete certainty of having answered correctly. The following calibration formula, described by Dahl et al. [24], was used to estimate the confidence:
$$ \frac{1}{n}{\sum}_{t=1}^T nt\left( rt- ct\right)2, $$
where n represents the total number of answered questions, T represents the number of confidence levels (6 in this case), nt represents the number of times the confidence level rt was reported, and ct represents the portion of correct answers to the total number of answers where confidence level rt was reported. If the calibration value from the formula is 0, the calibration is perfect, that is, the confidence of the participant of having answered correctly is in line with how correctly the participant in fact did answer. The bigger the confidence value from the formula, the more the participant is misjudging his/her ability to answer the questions correctly.
Covariates
Adjustments were made for age, sex, education and country of origin. Education was categorized as elementary school not completed, fulfilled elementary school, fulfilled secondary school, and one year or more of higher education or university degree. Country of origin was categorized as born in Sweden and born in other country than Sweden. Description of covariates are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of the study sample Exclusion
Depression is associated with cognitive impairment [31]. The comprehensive psychopathological rating scale (CPRS) was used to detect depression. A CPRS score above 20 indicated depression [32, 33]. Fourty-two participants met this criterion. Two hundred fourty individuals had not answered > 2 questions in the CPRS-questionnaire. Twenty-seven individuals (9,2 0/00) had left only1–2 questions unanswered in the CPRS-questionnaire. These unanswered questions were imputed with the mean value of the answered CPRS-questions for each of these 27 participants individually.
A physician identified individuals with a prior diagnosis of dementia or who met the criteria for dementia defined in DSM-IV [34]. The information was based on medical records, clinical examination, and proxy information from family members/relatives and ward staff. Two hundred individuals met the criteria for dementia or had insufficient data for an assessment to be made.
One hundred sixteen individuals had missing blood samples. One hundred seventy-four individuals did not participate in the cognitive tests. One hundred nineteen individuals had missing information on education.
In total, 500 individuals were excluded due to depression, and/or dementia, and/or missing information on cognitive tests, kidney function and/or education, leaving 2431 individuals remaining in the study sample, see Fig. 1. The excluded individuals tended to be older, more often of female sex, had less education and were more often born in Sweden than another country, see Additional file 1.
A flow chart of study sample from the Good Aging in Skåne (GÅS) general cohort study. The numbers are given for participants at baseline in GÅS, the number of participants meeting the different exclusion criteria, and the number of participants left in the present study. Several participants met multiple exclusion criteria.
Statistics
The data for all cognitive tests, except MMSE, TMT B-A and confidence judgement, were normally distributed, with skewness and kurtosis +/− 2. The group sizes for MMSE, TMT B-A and confidence judgement were big enough though, to allow use of independent samples t-tests [35]. Independent samples t-tests were used for all cognitive tests to compare the results for individuals with impaired kidney function (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) to individuals with normal kidney function (eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2).
Multiple linear regression models were used to compare the results of the cognitive tests for participants based on their kidney function categorized in impaired and normal function, and also in relation to severity of impaired kidney function divided into four groups (eGFR levels/min/1.73 m2; < 30 mL, 30- < 45 mL, 45- < 60 mL and ≥ 60 mL). All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education and country of origin. The same analyses were performed after stratification for age into four age groups (60–69 years, 70–79 years, 80–89 years and > 90 years).
Multiple linear regression models including interaction analyses were used to detect interaction between kidney function and the demographic variables above, see Additional files 4 and 5.