Association between telomere length and cognitive function among cognitively unimpaired individuals at risk of Alzheimer’s disease
====================================================================================================================================

* Blanca Rodríguez-Fernández
* Gonzalo Sánchez-Benavides
* Patricia Genius
* Carolina Minguillon
* Karine Fauria
* Immaculata De Vivo
* Arcadi Navarro
* Jose Luis Molinuevo
* Juan D. Gispert
* Aleix Sala-Vila
* Natalia Vilor-Tejedor
* Marta Crous-Bou
* the ALFA study

## Abstract

**INTRODUCTION** Leukocyte telomere length (LTL) is an objective biomarker of biological aging, and it is proposed to play a crucial role in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk. We aimed at evaluating the cross-sectional association between LTL and cognitive performance in middle-aged cognitively unimpaired individuals at increased risk of AD.

**METHODS** A total of 1,520 participants from the ALFA cohort were included. Relative telomere length was measured in leukocytes through qPCR. LTL was residualized against age and sex, and associations with cognitive performance were assessed in accelerated and decelerated biological aging individuals based on residual LTL (rLTL). Interactions with sex and genetic risk of AD were tested.

**RESULTS** Non-linear associations were found between LTL and episodic memory (EM). Better EM was associated with longer rLTL among women in the accelerated aging group.

**DISCUSSION** Results suggest a potential role for telomeres in maintaining cognition in aging with sex-specific patterns.

**Highlights:**

*   ● There is a non-linear association between telomere length and cognitive performance.

*   ● Longer telomeres are suggested to have a beneficial effect on episodic memory.

*   ● The association between telomeres and cognitive performance might be sex-specific.

Keywords
*   Alzheimer’s disease
*   Biological aging
*   Cognitive performance
*   Sex differences
*   Telomere length

## 1. Introduction

Aging is the primary risk factor for most neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 1, 2. The number of individuals living with dementia worldwide is expected to increase upon 153 million in 2050, due primarily to population aging 3. However, deciphering molecular mechanisms linking aging with neurodegeneration is a complex undertaking, as these two phenomena likely evolve in tandem and mutually influence each other 4, 5 .

The human telomere complex consists of tandem repeated short DNA sequences and associated proteins located at the end of chromosomes that protects genomic integrity. Telomere attrition naturally occurs during aging due to cellular division 6, 7. However, telomere erosion to a critical length can trigger aging-associated disease by inducing genomic instability, which can lead to cellular apoptosis or senescence 8. Thus, telomere length (TL) is considered one of the hallmarks of aging, along with others such as epigenetic alterations or chronic inflammation 9. These hallmarks are functionally related to each other and are interconnected with the main determinants of health, collectively contributing to the complex and multifactorial nature of aging 10.

In epidemiological studies, TL is commonly measured in leukocytes from peripheral blood (i.e., leukocyte telomere length [LTL]) and it has been proposed as an objective biomarker of biological aging across human tissues 11. Shorter LTL has been associated with increased mortality rates and higher incidence of several age-related comorbid diseases associated with AD, such as cardiovascular or metabolic traits 12–15. Importantly, while LTL is a highly heritable trait 16, recent evidence suggests that it may be modifiable by lifestyle interventions and exposure to environmental factors 17.

Shorter LTL has been associated with an increased risk of developing AD 18,19 and people living with AD showed shorter LTL than age-matched controls in a meta-analysis study 20. However, the underlying biological pathways driving these associations remain to be elucidated. In this regard, LTL has been associated with multiple structural brain endophenotypes of neurodegenerative diseases among cognitively unimpaired (CU) middle-aged individuals from the UK Biobank 21. Moreover, longer LTL was associated with a lower risk of incident AD, better cognitive performance, larger hippocampus volume and lower total volume of white matter hyperintensities 22.

Nonetheless, the association of LTL with early markers of AD, including cognitive performance, requires further investigation along the *continuum* of the disease. For instance, prior studies have reported a detrimental effect of telomere shortening on cognitive performance in the general population 23–25. However, LTL was unrelated to cognitive ability among CU older individuals or those having dementia or incipient dementia 26. Besides, LTL at baseline was associated with worse cognitive performance among individuals with high baseline AD pathology at different stages of the disease’s *continuum* from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative 27.

Given the conflicting findings in previous studies, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between baseline LTL and cognitive performance in a cohort of middle-aged, CU individuals at increased risk of AD. In addition, we explored potential non-linear associations, sex-interactions, and effect modifications related to the genetic risk of AD. The results of our study are expected to shed light into the complex relationship between LTL and AD pathological processes during the earliest stages of the *continuum*.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Study participants

The present is a cross-sectional analysis that was conducted in the context of an existing study, the ALFA (Alzheimer and Families) study 28. Briefly, the ALFA study ([Clinicaltrials.gov](https://Clinicaltrials.gov) Identifier: [NCT01835717](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01835717&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom)) includes a total of 2,743 CU participants, aged 45–74, many of them kindred of people living with AD (86% had at least one parent with dementia regardless age at onset, 48% of the participants had at least one parent diagnosed with AD before the age of 75).

Participants were characterized at their baseline visit in 2013–2014 at multiple levels (sociodemographic, anthropometric, clinical, epidemiological, cognitive and neuroimaging). . ALFA exclusion criteria were (1) Cognitive performance falling outside established cutoffs: Mini-Mental State Examination 29, 30 < 26, Memory Impairment Screen 31, 32 < 6, Time-Orientation subtest of the Barcelona Test II 33 < 68, semantic fluency 34, 35 (animals) < 12. (2) Clinical Dementia Rating scale 36 > 0. (2) Major psychiatric disorders (DSM-IV-TR) or diseases that could affect cognitive abilities. (3) Severe auditory and/or visual, neurodevelopmental and/or psychomotor disorders, significant diseases that could interfere with cognition. (4) Neurological disorders. (5) Brain injury that could interfere with cognition. (6) Family history of AD with suspected autosomal dominant pattern. Further details of ALFA participants can be found in 28.

The study was conducted in accordance with the directives of the Spanish Law 14/2007, of 3rd of July, on Biomedical Research (Ley 14/2007 de Investigación Biomédica). All participants accepted the study procedures by signing an informed consent form.

### 2.2. Cognitive performance evaluation

During neuropsychological evaluation at baseline, all participants were administered a cognitive test battery for the detection of early decline in longitudinal follow-up. Episodic memory (EM) was assessed by means of the Spanish version of the Memory Binding Test (MBT) 37, 38. In this test, the examinee should learn two sets of 16 written words that share semantic categories by pairs. Four main variables including free and cued recalls in immediate and delayed (after 25–35 min) trials were analyzed: Immediate total paired recall (TPR), immediate total free recall (TFR), delayed total paired recall (TDPR), and delayed total free recall (TDFR). Further cognitive domains were measured using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) IV Coding, Digit Span, Visual Puzzles, Similarities and Matrix Reasoning subtests 39. Coding measures, among others, processing speed and attention. The Digit Span subtest evaluates short-term and working memory. Visual Puzzles measures complex visual processing. Matrix Reasoning assesses non-verbal reasoning, and Similarities measures verbal reasoning and abstract thinking. For our study, a modified Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) 40 was created by averaging the z-scores of the following variables: MBT-TPR, MBT-TDFR, WAIS-IV Coding, and semantic fluency. Moreover, two additional cognitive composites to assess global EM and executive function (EF) were calculated by creating z-scores for the cognitive measures from MBT and from WAIS-IV subtests, respectively. These global measures were calculated by averaging normalized raw scores of all subtests in each domain 41. As with the individual cognitive tests, higher scores in the different composites represent better cognitive performance.

### 2.3. Apolipoprotein E genotyping

Total DNA was obtained from the blood cellular fraction by proteinase K digestion followed by alcohol precipitation. Using the following primers (*APOE-F 5′- TTGAAGGCCTACAAATCGGAACTG-3′ and APOE-R 5′- CCGGCTGCCCATCTCCTCCATCCG-3′*) samples were genotyped for two SNPs, rs429358 and rs7412, determining the possible *APOE* alleles: ε1, rs429358 (C) + rs7412 (T); ε2, rs429358 (T) + rs7412 (T); ε3, rs429358 (T) + rs7412 (C); and ε4, rs429358 (C) + rs7412 (C).

### 2.4. Genome-wide genotyping, imputation, and polygenic risk score

A total of 2,686 participants of the ALFA parent cohort were genotyped, as 57 individuals had to be excluded since blood extraction could not be performed or sufficient DNA could not be obtained to perform the genotyping. After genetic quality control (QC) procedure, a total of 2,527 CU individuals from the ALFA parent cohort were genetically characterized. Imputation of genetic variants was performed using the Michigan Imputation Server with the Haplotype Reference Consortium Panel (HRC r1.1 2016) 42 using default parameters and following established guidelines. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were calculated using PRSice version 2 43. PRSice computes PRSs by summing all SNP alleles carried by participants, weighting them by the SNP allele effect size estimated in a previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and normalizing the score by the total number of SNPs included. PRS for AD risk, CSF amyloid-β (Aβ) and PRS-CSFpTau were calculated using summary statistics from recent GWASs. PRS for AD was additionally calculated excluding the *APOE* region (chr19:45,409,011-45,412,650; GRCh37/hg19) (PRS-ADno*APOE*). Results were displayed at a restrictive threshold, 5×10-6. DNA extraction, genotyping, genetic QC, and imputation procedures are detailed elsewhere 44.

### 2.5. Leukocyte telomere length measurements

A total of 1,660 participants were selected for LTL determinations based on the availability of biological samples (already stored at the biobank) and cognitive assessment (available at in-house databases). Samples were sent to the Harvard Cancer Center Genotyping & Genetics for Population Sciences Facility for LTL determination using a high throughput version of the quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-based telomere assay. LTL was measured in a single batch for all samples. LTL was determined by qPCR from the DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes. First, DNA was quantified and normalized, and then the relative LTL was determined by a high-performance version of the real-time qPCR for telomeres. The assay was run on the Applied Biosystems 7900HT Sequence Detection System (Foster City, CA, USA). Laboratory personnel were blinded to participants’ characteristics, and all assays were processed in triplicate by the same technician and under identical conditions. The average relative LTL (i.e., Exp ddCt) was calculated as the exponentiated ratio of telomere repeat copy number to a single gene (36B4) copy number corrected for a reference sample.

Sample triplicates coefficient of variation (CV) ranged between 0.15-14.6. Samples with triplicate-CVs above 15% were removed for subsequent analysis (3 samples). The intra-set CVs ranged between 0.97-1.14. The average CV was 8.36% for the whole assay, which passes the internal standard quality controls. Forty-five samples failed the assay (2.6%), of which 21 were expected to fail due to low concentration of DNA after the DNA quantification. A total of 48 samples did not fail but presented higher cycle threshold (Ct) values than they should be (Ct > 26 for telomere and Ct > 29 for 36B4) (N = 48). Additionally, *APOE*-ε2ε4 individuals (N = 30) were removed from the analyses. Outliers were detected and removed based on the Grubbs test (N = 5), leaving reliable data for a total of 1,532 after quality control.

### 2.6. Statistical analysis

LTL values were natural log-transformed and normalized by computing z-scores. LTL was residualized (i.e., rLTL) against chronological age at LTL measurement and sex using a linear regression model. rLTL was considered a standardized measure of biological aging in the study population: greater rLTL values were indicative of longer telomeres than expected for a given chronological age (irrespective of sex) and *vice versa*.

Initial analyses showed suggestive non-linear relationship between rLTL and cognitive performance in the study sample. In order to capture non-linear effects, categorization of the sample was performed by (1) using natural cubic splines to model the association between rLTL and cognitive performance 45 and (2) selecting the knots based on the lowest Bayesian information criteria [BIC] 46. The most parsimonious description of the rLTL-cognitive performance association was found for a division based on the percentile 50th (according to the BIC, see **Supplementary Figures 1-3**). Thus, the sample was classified in two groups based on the percentile 50th of the rLTL: accelerated biological aging group (i.e., rLTL < percentile 50th) and decelerated biological aging group (i.e., rLTL > percentile 50th).

The cross-sectional association between rLTL and cognitive performance was tested in the whole sample and separately in the accelerated and decelerated biological aging groups. Generalized linear models with Poisson/quasi-binomial distributions and linear regression models were implemented to assess the association between rLTL and cognitive subtests as well as rLTL and cognitive composites, respectively. All models were adjusted by age, sex, education and *APOE*-ɛ4 status.

Interactions with genetic risk for AD and sex were tested by including interaction terms for sex, *APOE*-ɛ4 status, PRS-ADno*APOE,* PRS-CSFAβ *and* PRS-CSFpTau in the models. Stratified analyses by sex were conducted. In those analyses, LTL was separately residualized against chronological age in women and men. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by further adjusting linear models by systolic blood pressure (SBP), PRS-ADnoAPOE and parental history of AD.

A false discovery rate (FDR) multiple-comparison correction was applied following the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure 47 for all analyses. FDR-*P* value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Unadjusted *P* value < 0.05 were considered nominally significant. All analyses were conducted under R software, version 4.2.3 48. Descriptive analyses were performed using *compareGroups R* package 49.

The final sample size was 1,520 individuals with available information for clinical history, cognitive performance, LTL determinations, and genetic data. Eligible criteria for inclusion in the present study can be found in **Figure 1**.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F1)

Figure 1. Flow-chart depicting the final sample size of the study.
*Legend: AAO, age at symptom onset; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; CU, cognitively unimpaired; LTL, leukocyte telomere length; QC, quality control*.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Main characteristics of the population by telomere length subgroups

The study sample was classified in two groups of individuals at different stages of biological aging based on the percentile 50th of the rLTL: accelerated biological aging group (i.e., rLTL < percentile 50th) and decelerated biological aging group (i.e., rLTL > percentile 50th) (see Methods, section 2.6) (**Figure 2**). The accelerated and decelerated aging groups had similar median age at baseline (56 years old) and proportions of women and men. Individuals in the accelerated aging group had higher SBP levels than those in the decelerated aging group (**Table 1**). The distribution of *APOE*-ε4 carriers did not differ between biological aging groups. Individuals in the decelerated aging group had higher polygenic risk scores for AD without *APOE* effect (i.e., PRS-ADno*APOE*). However, individuals with positive parental history of AD were more likely to be classified in the accelerated aging group, and significant differences in the distribution of parental history of AD by parent were observed. Specifically, the percentage of individuals with positive family history of AD in both parents was significantly higher in the accelerated aging group than in the decelerated aging group. Conversely, a higher percentage of positive maternal familial history of AD was observed among individuals in the accelerated aging group. When considering a more stringent parental history encoding (age at symptom onset before 75 years old), no differences were found between the groups, although a similar distribution of parental history of AD by parent was observed (**Table 1**).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F2)

Figure 2. Classification of individuals (N=1,520) in two groups of biological aging based on percentile 50th of residualized leukocyte telomere length.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of study population at blood draw, by percentile 50th of rLTL.

No significant differences were observed among women in the accelerated or decelerated biological aging groups. However, among men, those with paternal family history of AD or both parents diagnosed with the disease were more likely to be classified in the decelerated aging group, while those with positive maternal family history of AD were more prevalent in the accelerated aging group, even when considering a more restrictive parental history encoding (age at symptom onset before 75 years old). Furthermore, men in the accelerated aging group had an earlier maternal symptom onset of AD compared to those in the decelerated aging group. There were no other statistically significant differences observed between the groups. (**Table 2**).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/T2)

Table 2. Characteristics of women and men at blood draw, by percentile 50th of rLTL.

### 3.2. Association between rLTL and episodic memory (EM)

The results showed that shorter rLTL at baseline was associated with worse scores on the EM composite, but only among individuals classified in the accelerated aging group [EM composite = β: 0.101, SE: 0.037, FDR-*P* value: .031]. No other statistically significant associations with the EM composite were found in the entire population or among individuals in the decelerated aging group (**Table 3**). This association persisted after adjusting for PRS-ADno*APOE*, SBP and family history of AD (**Supplementary Table 1**). In the analysis with specific scores, shorter rLTL at baseline was associated with worse performance on verbal episodic memory variables related to both immediate and delayed paired and free recall of words from the MBT, but only among individuals within the accelerated aging group. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons only the association with TFR remained significant [TFR = Estimate: 1.039, SE: 1.012, FDR-*P* value: .020] (**Table 3**).

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/T3)

Table 3. Association between rLTL and cognitive variables.

In the entire sample, a suggestive rLTL-sex interaction effect was found on EM [*P* value-interaction: .065] (**Supplementary Figure 4**, **Supplementary Table 2**). Similarly, a statistically significant sex-interaction effect was observed among individuals in the accelerated aging group [*P* value-interaction: .043] (**Figure 3**, **Supplementary Table 2**). Specifically, shorter rLTL at baseline had a detrimental effect on the EM composite among women in the accelerated aging group [EM composite = β: 0.151, SE: 0.045, *P* value: .007], whereas longer rLTL had a suggestive detrimental effect among men in the decelerated aging group [EM composite = β: −0.150, SE: 0.069, *P* value: .030] (**Table 4**).

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/F3)

Figure 3. Significant interaction effect of sex and residualized leukocyte telomere length on episodic memory among individuals at accelerated aging (N=760).
*[P-Interaction = 0.043]*

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/03/2023.05.29.23290678/T4)

Table 4. Association between rLTL and cognitive variables stratifying by sex.

Regarding specific cognitive variables, shorter rLTL at baseline had significant detrimental effects on both TFR and TDFR among women included in the accelerated aging group [TFR = Estimate: 1.057, SE: 1.015, FDR-*P* value: .008; TDFR = Estimate: 1.051, SE: 015, FDR-*P* value: .013]. However, nominal statistically significant associations between longer rLTL and lower performance in TPR and TDPR were observed among men in the decelerated aging group [TPR= Estimate: 0.991, SE: 1.018, *P* value: .045; TDPR= Estimate: 0.948, SE: 1.053, *P* value: .020] (**Table 4**).

No other significant interaction effects on the EM composite were observed between rLTL and the genetic risk of AD, including *APOE*-ε4 status,PRS-ADno*APOE,* PRS-CSFAβ or PRS-CSFpTau (**Supplementary Tables 3-6**).

### 3.3. Association between rLTL, executive function and semantic fluency

In our population, no associations were found between rLTL and the EF composite in the entire sample, nor in subgroup analyses performed independently in the biological aging subgroups (**Table 3**). These associations were not changed after fully adjusting the models (**Supplementary Table 1**). Additionally, on the EF composite, rLTL had no interactive effect with sex, *APOE*-ε4, PRS-ADno*APOE*, PRS-CSFAβ or PRS-CSFpTau (**Supplementary Tables 2-6**).

Regarding specific subtests on the EF domain, nominally statistically significant associations were found between longer rLTL and worse performance on WAIS-IV Coding, both in the whole sample [Coding = Estimate: 0.990, SE: 1.003, *P* value: .002] and among individuals in the decelerated aging group [Coding = Estimate: 0.984, SE: 1.007, *P* value: .012] (**Table 3**). These associations were mainly driven by women (**Table 4**).

Additionally, a nominally significant association was observed among men, where longer rLTL was associated with better semantic fluency [Semantic Fluency = Estimate: 1.023, SE: 1.009, *P* value: .012] (**Table 4**).

### 3.4. Association between rLTL and pre-clinical Alzheimer cognitive composite

Shorter rLTL at baseline was nominally associated with lower scores in the PACC, but only among women in the accelerated aging group [PACC = β: 0.071, SE: 0.034, *P* value: .038] (**Table 4**). In post-hoc sensitivity analyses, adjustment by further potential confounders (i.e., PRS-ADno*APOE*, SBP and family history of AD) revealed a borderline nominally statistically significant association between shorter rLTL and lower scores in the PACC among individuals in the accelerated aging group [PACC = β: 0.044, SE: .022, *P* value: .049] (**Supplementary Table 1**). No other statistically significant associations were found (**Table 3-4**).

## 4. Discussion

The present study explored the cross-sectional association between rLTL and cognitive performance among 1,520 cognitively healthy individuals from the ALFA study. We found that shorter rLTL at baseline was associated with worse EM only among individuals with shorter telomeres than expected for their age (i.e., accelerated aging group [N = 760]). A sex-interaction effect on the EM composite was found among individuals at accelerated aging: shorter rLTL at baseline was associated with worse performance on the EM domain only among women classified in the accelerated aging group (N = 472), whereas no significant association was found among men in the accelerated aging group (N = 289). Although no sex-interactive effect was found among individuals at decelerated aging, longer rLTL had a detrimental effect on the EM composite among men (N = 288) but not women at decelerated aging (N = 471). To our knowledge, this is the first study examining sex-differences in LTL-cognition associations.

Regarding cognitive variables, shorter rLTL at baseline had significant detrimental effects on both TFR and TDFR among women included in the accelerated aging group. However, among men in the decelerated aging group, associations between longer rLTL and lower performance in TPR and TDPR were observed. Remarkably, only free recall measurements remained significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Cued recall measurements are considered better predictors of memory impairment due to AD dementia since they remain intact during normal aging 50, being able to distinguish people living with AD from age-matched controls 51–54. Nevertheless, free recall measurements have been found to be more sensitive for prediction of AD dementia specifically during pre-clinical stages 55–57. Interestingly, the delayed free recall of the second list of the MBT has been associated with amyloid burden in precuneus in clinical normal elderly 58. Moreover, worse performance in TDFR but not cued recall was found in prodromal amyloid positive individuals without degeneration, while both TDFR and TDPR worsened in more advanced biomarker stages with amyloid burden and neurodegeneration 59. In accordance with these findings, it has been described a sequence of memory impairment in the course of AD in which the first change occurs in free recall, while additional impairment in cued recall (i.e. paired recall trials in the MBT) occur later on 60, 61. Additionally, free recall is more affected by aging than cued recall or recognition 62, since it relies on active self-guided processes that are dependent on the function of the frontal lobe 63, which is known to be the brain region primarily affected by aging 64, 65. Thus, our observed associations between free recall measures and rLTL in CU individuals at increased risk of AD may relate to an exacerbated cognitive aging and/or the effect of early AD pathological changes in some individuals 66.

Regarding the EF domain, the association between longer rLTL and poorer processing speed (specifically, WAIS-IV Coding) found to be nominally statistically significant, in both the entire sample and the decelerated aging group. However, given the lack of other significant associations related to executive performance in our sample, this finding should be interpreted with caution. In contrast, longer rLTL was nominally associated with better semantic fluency, but only among men (N = 577). Nominal significant associations were also found between shorter rLTL and worse PACC among women in the accelerated aging group. However, since PACC was computed by averaging scores coming from variables of MBT, WAIS-IV, and semantic fluency, we suspect this result was mainly driven by results in the EM domain and countered by the opposite associations encountered on the EF domain.

Previous studies have reported associations between longer LTL and better performance in a variety of cognitive domains and general cognition in meta-analytic settings 24, 67. Moreover, shorter LTL predicted 20-year memory decline among 880 dementia-free participants from a population-based study 68. In the UKBiobank, longer LTL was significantly associated with faster reaction time, higher fluid intelligence and higher numeric memory 22. In contrast, longer telomeres at baseline had been associated with faster EF decline among AD biomarker-positive individuals and carriers of the *APOE*-ε4 allele 27, whereas longer LTL predicted worse episodic memory among *APOE*-ε4 carriers 69. Thus, whether longer telomeres play a protective or perjudicial role on cognitive resilience remains unclear, specially in the presence of other risk factors for AD. Interestingly, previous observational studies have described non-linear associations between LTL and AD risk 18, 19, with different directions of associations among *APOE*-ε4 carriers and non-carriers 18. However, no effect modification by *APOE*-ε4 status or the polygenic liability for AD were observed in the associations between rLTL and the outcomes of the present study. Together, these results suggest complex heterogeneity in LTL mechanisms that may appear to change over the AD spectrum and the *continuum* of the disease.

Given the aforementioned results, biological aging due to telomere shortening could interact with the AD pathophysiological process and contribute to cognitive vulnerability since the earliest pre-clinical stages of the disease 22, 70, 71. Importantly, only critically short telomeres are able to trigger cellular senescence 72 and senescence phenotypes resulting from telomere shortening have been detected in microglial cells from post-mortem samples of people living with AD, indicating a possible link between telomere shortening and AD pathogenesis 73. Additionally, telomere shortening has been associated with reduced hippocampal progenitor cell proliferation and changes in gene expression that affect cognitive function 74. Conversely, a recent Mendelian Randomization study conducted in our sample showed genetically predicted longer LTL was associated with lower levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ and higher levels of CSF NfL only among *APOE*-ɛ4 non-carriers. On the contrary, inheriting longer LTL was associated with lower levels of CSF p-tau among individuals with high polygenic risk scores of AD 75. The complex and dynamic relationship between biological aging and AD pathology through the disease *continuum* may partially explain the non-linear associations between LTL, cognitive performance, and AD risk, as suggested by the conflicting associations observed.

Our study is not without limitations. Our cohort is rather selected and composed of middle-aged CU individuals. Therefore, individuals at high risk of AD might have already shown signs of cognitive decline at recruitment, which was an exclusion criterion of the present study. Furthermore, participants in the ALFA study showed a low prevalence of other common comorbidities 28 and therefore our results might not be generalizable to the general population. On the other hand, sex-interactions, and stratified analyses by sex drawback from our sex-unbalanced sample (i.e., 62% women vs. 38% males), which could explain lack of significant sex-interactions in the entire sample as well as associations among men. Importantly, given its cross-sectional design, our results on cognitive performance might reflect a transient stage within the AD pathological process. Thus, longitudinal studies with greater sample sizes will be warranted to unravel the effect of telomere maintenance on cognitive performance during mid-life. Finally, those associations that did not survive FDR multiple comparisons correction should be interpreted with caution.

However, this study also exhibits multiple strengths. Our study is based on a robust and well-characterized cohort of CU middle-aged individuals. This included the extensive characterization of cognitive outcomes in the ALFA participants compared to the general population. As far as we know, no prior studies have explored sex-specific patterns of telomere effects on cognitive performance in a similar cohort of CU individuals at increased risk of developing AD. This implies our findings should be replicated in larger cohorts including people living with AD at different stages of the disease. Similarly, the follow-up of ALFA participants and further prospective observational studies are required to better understand such observations.

In conclusion, this cross-sectional study shows a non-linear association between LTL and cognitive performance, with heterogeneous associations between telomere length and different cognitive domains. Shorter telomeres at baseline were associated with poorer memory performance among individuals at accelerated biological aging. Moreover, our findings indicate sex-specific effects, with women at accelerated aging experiencing more pronounced cognitive impairment than their male counterparts. Our results suggest sex-specific cognitive vulnerability associated with telomere homeostasis in our cohort.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Table 1 [[supplements/290678_file05.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Table 2 [[supplements/290678_file06.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Table 3 [[supplements/290678_file07.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Table 4 [[supplements/290678_file08.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Table 5 [[supplements/290678_file09.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Table 5 [[supplements/290678_file10.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure 1 [[supplements/290678_file11.jpg]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure 2 [[supplements/290678_file12.jpg]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure 3 [[supplements/290678_file13.jpg]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure 4 [[supplements/290678_file14.jpg]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

## List of supplementary figures

**Supplementary Figure 1.** The non-linear association between residualized leukocyte telomere length (rLTL) and Episodic Memory composite was investigated by including (a) one-knot, (b) two-knots, and (c) three-knots natural splines. The best-fitted model was selected using the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC). Lower BIC values represent better fitted-models.

**Supplementary Figure 2.** The non-linear association between residualized leukocyte telomere length (rLTL) and Executive Function composite was investigated by including (a) one-knot, (b) two-knots, and (c) three-knots natural splines. The best-fitted model was selected using the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC). Lower BIC values represent better fitted-models.

**Supplementary Figure 3.** The non-linear association between residualized leukocyte telomere length (rLTL) and Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive composite was investigated by including (a) one-knot, (b) two-knots, and (c) three-knots natural splines. The best-fitted model was selected using the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC). Lower BIC values represent better fitted-models.

**Supplementary Figure 4.** Interaction effect between sex and rLTL on episodic memory in the entire sample. *[P-Interaction = 0.06]*

## List of supplementary tables

**Supplementary Table 1.** Fully adjusted models examining the association between rLTL and the main cognitive outcomes of the study. *Legend: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; PRS, Polygenic risk score; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

**Supplementary Table 2.** Interactive effect of rLTL and sex on the main outcomes of the study. *Legend: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

**Supplementary Table 3.** Interactive effect of rLTL and *APOE*-ε4 carriership on the main outcomes of the study. *Legend: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

**Supplementary Table 4.** Interactive effect of rLTL and PRS-ADnoAPOE on the main outcomes of the study. *Legend: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; PRS, Polygenic risk score; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

**Supplementary Table 5.** Interactive effect of rLTL and PRS-CSFAβ on the main outcomes of the study. *Legend: Aβ, amyloid-β; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; PRS, polygenic risk score; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

**Supplementary Table 6.** Interactive effect of rLTL and PRS-CSFpTau on the main outcomes of the study. *Legend: CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; PRS, polygenic risk score; pTau, phosphorylated tau; rLTL, residualized leukocyte telomere length; SE, standard error. Significant P values are marked in bold. All continuous predictors are mean-centered and scaled by 1 standard deviation*.

## Conflict of interest statement

JLM is currently a full-time employee of Lundbeck and has previously served as a consultant or at advisory boards for the following for-profit companies or has given lectures in symposia sponsored by the following for-profit companies: Roche Diagnostics, Genentech, Novartis, Lundbeck, Oryzon, Biogen, Lilly, Janssen, Green Valley, MSD, Eisai, Alector, BioCross, GE Healthcare, ProMIS Neurosciences. JDG has received speaker’s or consultant’s fees from Philips Nederlands, Roche Diagnostics and Biogen and research support from GE Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics and Hoffmann-La Roche. MSC has served as a consultant and at advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, has given lectures in symposia sponsored by Roche Diagnostics, S.L.U, Roche Farma, S.A and Roche Sistemas de Diagnósticos, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. and research support from Roche Diagnostics International Ltd. GSB has served as a consultant for Roche Farma, S.A. ASV has received research funding through his institution and support to attend professional meetings from the California Walnut Commission. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## Funding

The project leading to these results has received funding from the Alzheimer’s Association (Grant AARG-19-618265). This project has received funding from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI19/00119). Additional support has been received from “la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434), under agreement LCF/PR/GN17/50300004, the Alzheimer’s Association and an international anonymous charity foundation through the TriBEKa Imaging Platform project (TriBEKa-17-519007), the Health Department of the Catalan Government (Health Research and Innovation Strategic Plan (PERIS) 2016-2020 grant# SLT002/16/00201), and the Universities and Research Secretariat, Ministry of Business and Knowledge of the Catalan Government under the grant no. 2017-SGR-892. All CRG authors acknowledge the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities to the EMBL partnership, the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa, and the CERCA Programme / Generalitat de Catalunya. JDG is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC-2013-13054). GSB has received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spanish Research Agency (PID2020-119556RA-I00). JDG is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC-2013-13054). NV-T is funded by the Juan de la Cierva Incorporación Programme (IJC2020-043216-I), Ministry of Science and Innovation– Spanish State Research Agency.

## Consent statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the directives of the Spanish Law 14/2007, of 3rd of July, on Biomedical Research (Ley 14/2007 de Investigación Biomédica). The ALFA study protocol was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee Parc de Salut Mar Barcelona and registered at [Clinicaltrials.gov](https://Clinicaltrials.gov) (Identifier: [NCT01835717](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01835717&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom)). All participants accepted the study procedures by signing the study’s informed consent form that had also been approved by the same IRB.

## Acknowledgements

This publication is part of the ALFA study. The authors would like to express their most sincere gratitude to the ALFA project participants and relatives without whom this research would have not been possible. Collaborators of the ALFA study are: Müge Akinci, Federica Anastasi, Annabella Beteta, Raffaele Cacciaglia, Lidia Canals, Alba Cañas, Carme Deulofeu, Maria Emilio, Irene Cumplido-Mayoral, Marta del Campo, Carme Deulofeu, Ruth Dominguez, Maria Emilio, Sherezade Fuentes, Marina García, Armand González-Escalante, Laura Hernández, Gema Huesa, Jordi Huguet, Laura Iglesias, Esther Jiménez, David López-Martos, Paula Marne, Tania Menchón, Paula Ortiz-Romero, Eleni Palpatzis, Wiesje Pelkmans, Albina Polo, Sandra Pradas, Iman Sadeghi, Mahnaz Shekari, Lluís Solsona, Anna Soteras, Laura Stankeviciute, Núria Tort-Colet and Marc Vilanova. We would like to additionally express our sincere gratitude to Prof. Immaculata de Vivo for her invaluable assistance in acquiring the telomere length data used in this study.

## Footnotes

*   † The complete list of collaborators of the ALFA study can be found in the acknowledgments.

*   Received May 29, 2023.
*   Revision received May 29, 2023.
*   Accepted June 3, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Alzheimer’s Association. 2016 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(4):459–509. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27570871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

2.  2.Hou Y, Dan X, Babbar M, et al. Ageing as a risk factor for neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(10):565–581. doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0244-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41582-019-0244-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31501588&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

3.  3.GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators. Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(2):e105–e125. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34998485&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

4.  4.Wyss-Coray T. Ageing, neurodegeneration and brain rejuvenation. Nature. 2016;539(7628):180–186. doi:10.1038/nature20411
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature20411&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27830812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

5.  5.Xia X, Jiang Q, McDermott J, Han JDJ. Aging and Alzheimer’s disease: Comparison and associations from molecular to system level. Aging Cell. 2018;17(5):e12802. doi:10.1111/acel.12802
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/acel.12802&link_type=DOI) 

6.  6.Blackburn EH. Structure and function of telomeres. Nature. 1991;350(6319):569–573. doi:10.1038/350569a0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/350569a0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1708110&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991FH11200047&link_type=ISI) 

7.  7.Blackburn EH. Switching and signaling at the telomere. Cell. 2001;106(6):661–673. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00492-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00492-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11572773&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000171213000004&link_type=ISI) 

8.  8.Blackburn EH, Epel ES, Lin J. Human telomere biology: A contributory and interactive factor in aging, disease risks, and protection. Science. 2015;350(6265):1193–1198. doi:10.1126/science.aab3389
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNTAvNjI2NS8xMTkzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDYvMDMvMjAyMy4wNS4yOS4yMzI5MDY3OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

9.  9.López-Otín C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell. 2023;186(2):243–278. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001&link_type=DOI) 

10. 10.López-Otín C, Kroemer G. Hallmarks of Health. Cell. 2021;184(1):33–63. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.034
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.034&link_type=DOI) 

11. 11.Demanelis K, Jasmine F, Chen LS, et al. Determinants of telomere length across human tissues. Science. 2020;369(6509). doi:10.1126/science.aaz6876
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjkvNjUwOS9lYWF6Njg3NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA2LzAzLzIwMjMuMDUuMjkuMjMyOTA2NzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

12. 12.Haycock PC, Heydon EE, Kaptoge S, Butterworth AS, Thompson A, Willeit P. Leucocyte telomere length and risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g4227. doi:10.1136/bmj.g4227
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDkvanVsMDhfMy9nNDIyNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA2LzAzLzIwMjMuMDUuMjkuMjMyOTA2NzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

13. 13.Wang J, Dong X, Cao L, et al. Association between telomere length and diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2016;44(6):1156–1173. doi:10.1177/0300060516667132
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0300060516667132&link_type=DOI) 

14. 14.Demanelis K, Tong L, Pierce BL. Genetically Increased Telomere Length and Aging-Related Traits in the U.K. Biobank. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;76(1):15–22. doi:10.1093/gerona/glz240
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gerona/glz240&link_type=DOI) 

15. 15.Schneider CV, Schneider KM, Teumer A, et al. Association of Telomere Length With Risk of Disease and Mortality. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(3):291–300. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.7804
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.7804&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35040871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

16. 16.Broer L, Codd V, Nyholt DR, et al. Meta-analysis of telomere length in 19,713 subjects reveals high heritability, stronger maternal inheritance and a paternal age effect. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(10):1163–1168. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.303
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ejhg.2012.303&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23321625&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

17. 17.Bountziouka V, Musicha C, Allara E, et al. Modifiable traits, healthy behaviours, and leukocyte telomere length: a population-based study in UK Biobank. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(5):e321–e331. doi:10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00072-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00072-1&link_type=DOI) 

18. 18.Hackenhaar FS, Josefsson M, Adolfsson AN, et al. Short leukocyte telomeres predict 25-year Alzheimer’s disease incidence in non-APOE ε4-carriers. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021;13(1):130. doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00871-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13195-021-00871-y&link_type=DOI) 

19. 19.Fani L, Hilal S, Sedaghat S, et al. Telomere length and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease: The Rotterdam Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;73(2):707–714. doi:10.3233/JAD-190759
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3233/JAD-190759&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Forero DA, González-Giraldo Y, López-Quintero C, Castro-Vega LJ, Barreto GE, Perry G. Meta-analysis of Telomere Length in Alzheimer’s Disease. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(8):1069–1073. doi:10.1093/gerona/glw053
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gerona/glw053&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27091133&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

21. 21.Topiwala A, Nichols TE, Williams LZJ, et al. Telomere length and brain imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282363. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282363
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0282363&link_type=DOI) 

22. 22.Liu R, Xiang M, Pilling LC, et al. Mid-life leukocyte telomere length and dementia risk: a prospective cohort study of 435,046 UK Biobank participants. bioRxiv. July 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.06.30.22277121
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1101/2022.06.30.22277121&link_type=DOI) 

23. 23.Yaffe K, Lindquist K, Kluse M, et al. Telomere length and cognitive function in community-dwelling elders: findings from the Health ABC Study. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32(11):2055–2060. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.006
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20031273&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000295220700013&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Hägg S, Zhan Y, Karlsson R, et al. Short telomere length is associated with impaired cognitive performance in European ancestry cohorts. Transl Psychiatry. 2017;7(4):e1100. doi:10.1038/tp.2017.73
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/tp.2017.73&link_type=DOI) 

25. 25.Linghui D, Shi Q, Chi C, et al. The Association Between Leukocyte Telomere Length and Cognitive Performance Among the American Elderly. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:527658. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.527658
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fnagi.2020.527658&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Ashrafi A, Cosentino S, Kang MS, et al. Leukocyte Telomere Length Is Unrelated to Cognitive Performance Among Non-Demented and Demented Persons: An Examination of Long Life Family Study Participants. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2020;26(9):906–917. doi:10.1017/S1355617720000363
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S1355617720000363&link_type=DOI) 

27. 27.Mahoney ER, Dumitrescu L, Seto M, et al. Telomere length associations with cognition depend on Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;5:883–890. doi:10.1016/j.trci.2019.11.003
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.trci.2019.11.003&link_type=DOI) 

28. 28.Molinuevo JL, Gramunt N, Gispert JD, et al. The ALFA project: A research platform to identify early pathophysiological features of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;2(2):82–92. doi:10.1016/j.trci.2016.02.003
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.trci.2016.02.003&link_type=DOI) 

29. 29.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1202204&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1975AY27900005&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30.Blesa R, Pujol M, Aguilar M, et al. Clinical validity of the “mini-mental state” for Spanish speaking communities. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(11):1150–1157. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00055-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00055-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11527552&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170933800005&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Buschke H, Kuslansky G, Katz M, et al. Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen. Neurology. 1999;52(2):231–238. doi:10.1212/wnl.52.2.231
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.52.2.231&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9932936&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

32. 32.Böhm P, Peña-Casanova J, Gramunt N, Manero RM, Terrón C, Quiñones-Ubeda S. Spanish version of the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS): normative data and discriminant validity. Neurologia. 2005;20(8):402–411. [https://europepmc.org/article/med/16217689](https://europepmc.org/article/med/16217689).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000086820&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16217689&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

33. 33.Quiñones Ubeda S. Desenvolupament, normalització i validació de la versió estàndard de la segona versió del Test Barcelona. 2009. [https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=82342](https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=82342). Accessed May 23, 2023.
    
    

34. 34.Ramier AM, Hécaen H. Respective rôles of frontal lesions and lesion lateralization in “verbal fluency” deficiencies. Rev Neurol . 1970;123(1):17–22. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5516326/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5516326/).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=5516326&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1970I129500002&link_type=ISI) 

35. 35.Peña-Casanova J, Quiñones-Ubeda S, Gramunt-Fombuena N, et al. Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): norms for verbal fluency tests. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;24(4):395–411. doi:10.1093/arclin/acp042
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/arclin/acp042&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19648583&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

36. 36.Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43(11):2412–2414. doi:10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.43.11.2412-a&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8232972&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

37. 37.Nilsson LG, Ohta N. Dementia and Memory. Psychology Press; 2014. doi:10.4324/9781315851730
    
    

38. 38.Gramunt N, Buschke H, Sánchez-Benavides G, et al. Reference data of the Spanish Memory Binding Test in a midlife population from the ALFA STUDY (Alzheimer’s and family). J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(3):613–625. doi:10.3233/JAD-150237
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3233/JAD-150237&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26402091&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

39. 39.Wechsler D, de la Guía E, Vallar F. WAIS-IV: Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler Para Adultos-IV. Pearson Madrid; 2012.
    
    

40. 40.Donohue MC, Sperling RA, Salmon DP, et al. The preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71(8):961–970. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.803
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.803&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24886908&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

41. 41.Brugulat-Serrat A, Salvadó G, Sudre CH, et al. P2-505: Regional distribution of white matter hyperintensity correlates with cognition in the Alfa cohort. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(7S_Part_17):P925–P925. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.1199
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.1199&link_type=DOI) 

42. 42.Das S, Forer L, Schönherr S, et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat Genet. 2016;48(10):1284–1287. doi:10.1038/ng.3656
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3656&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27571263&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

43. 43.Choi SW, O’Reilly PF. PRSice-2: Polygenic Risk Score software for biobank-scale data. Gigascience. 2019;8(7). doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz082
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gigascience/giz082&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31307061&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

44. 44.Vilor-Tejedor N, Genius P, Rodríguez-Fernández B, et al. Genetic characterization of the ALFA study: Uncovering genetic profiles in the Alzheimer’s*continuum*. medRxiv. April 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.04.26.23289138
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMy4wNC4yNi4yMzI4OTEzOHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDYvMDMvMjAyMy4wNS4yOS4yMzI5MDY3OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

45. 45.Gauthier J, Wu QV, Gooley TA. Cubic splines to model relationships between continuous variables and outcomes: a guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(4):675–680. doi:10.1038/s41409-019-0679-x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41409-019-0679-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

46. 46.Schwarz G. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–464. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/aos/1176344136&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1978EQ63300014&link_type=ISI) 

47. 47.Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. False Discovery Rate–Adjusted Multiple Confidence Intervals for Selected Parameters. J Am Stat Assoc. 2005;100(469):71–81. doi:10.1198/016214504000001907
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1198/016214504000001907&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000233311100008&link_type=ISI) 

48. 48.Bunn A, Korpela M. Crossdating in dplR. [https://cran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2014-09-08/web/packages/dplR/vignettes/xdate-dplR.pdf](https://cran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2014-09-08/web/packages/dplR/vignettes/xdate-dplR.pdf). Accessed May 23, 2023.
    
    

49. 49.Subirana I, Sanz H, Vila J. Building Bivariate Tables: The compareGroups Package for R. J Stat Softw. 2014;57:1–16. doi:10.18637/jss.v057.i12
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18637/jss.v057.i12&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25400517&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

50. 50.Grober E, Lipton RB, Katz M, Sliwinski M. Demographic influences on free and cued selective reminding performance in older persons. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(2):221–226. doi:10.1076/jcen.20.2.221.1177
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1076/jcen.20.2.221.1177&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9777476&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000076063100010&link_type=ISI) 

51. 51.Grober E, Kawas C. Learning and retention in preclinical and early Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol Aging. 1997;12(1):183–188. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.183
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.183&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9100279&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997WM56500017&link_type=ISI) 

52. 52.Saka E, Mihci E, Topcuoglu MA, Balkan S. Enhanced cued recall has a high utility as a screening test in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment in Turkish people. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21(7):745–751. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.08.007
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.acn.2006.08.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16979317&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

53. 53.Sarazin M, Berr C, De Rotrou J, et al. Amnestic syndrome of the medial temporal type identifies prodromal AD: a longitudinal study. Neurology. 2007;69(19):1859–1867. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000279336.36610.f7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/01.wnl.0000279336.36610.f7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17984454&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

54. 54.Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al. Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(6):614–629. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70090-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70090-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24849862&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000337212700024&link_type=ISI) 

55. 55.Auriacombe S, Helmer C, Amieva H, Berr C, Dubois B, Dartigues JF. Validity of the free and cued selective reminding test in predicting dementia: the 3C study. Neurology. 2010;74(22):1760–1767. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181df0959
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToibmV1cm9sb2d5IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3NC8yMi8xNzYwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDYvMDMvMjAyMy4wNS4yOS4yMzI5MDY3OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

56. 56.Grober E, Sanders AE, Hall C, Lipton RB. Free and cued selective reminding identifies very mild dementia in primary care. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2010;24(3):284–290. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181cfc78b
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181cfc78b&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20683186&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

57. 57.Sánchez-Benavides G, Grau-Rivera O, Cacciaglia R, et al. Distinct Cognitive and Brain Morphological Features in Healthy Subjects Unaware of Informant-Reported Cognitive Decline. J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;65(1):181–191. doi:10.3233/JAD-180378
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3233/JAD-180378&link_type=DOI) 

58. 58.Rentz DM, Locascio JJ, Becker JA, et al. Cognition, reserve, and amyloid deposition in normal aging. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(3):353–364. doi:10.1002/ana.21904
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneurol.2010.19&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20373347&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276216800011&link_type=ISI) 

59. 59.Papp KV, Amariglio RE, Mormino EC, et al. Free and cued memory in relation to biomarker-defined abnormalities in clinically normal older adults and those at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia. 2015;73:169–175. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.034
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.034&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26002757&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

60. 60.Grober E, Veroff AE, Lipton RB. Temporal unfolding of declining episodic memory on the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test in the predementia phase of Alzheimer’s disease: Implications for clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;10:161–171. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2017.12.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.dadm.2017.12.004&link_type=DOI) 

61. 61.Grober E, Qi Q, Kuo L, Hassenstab J, Perrin RJ, Lipton RB. Stages of Objective Memory Impairment predict Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology: Comparison with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-sum of boxes. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;80(1):185–195. doi:10.3233/JAD-200946
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3233/JAD-200946&link_type=DOI) 

62. 62.Perlmutter M. Age differences in adults’ free recall, cued recall, and recognition. J Gerontol. 1979;34(4):533–539. doi:10.1093/geronj/34.4.533
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/geronj/34.4.533&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=448044&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1979HC53900008&link_type=ISI) 

63. 63.Davidson PSR, Troyer AK, Moscovitch M. Frontal lobe contributions to recognition and recall: linking basic research with clinical evaluation and remediation. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12(2):210–223. doi:10.1017/S1355617706060334
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S1355617706060334&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16573855&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236680700007&link_type=ISI) 

64. 64.Resnick SM, Pham DL, Kraut MA, Zonderman AB, Davatzikos C. Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies of older adults: a shrinking brain. J Neurosci. 2003;23(8):3295–3301. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-08-03295.2003
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjIzLzgvMzI5NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA2LzAzLzIwMjMuMDUuMjkuMjMyOTA2NzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

65. 65.Fjell AM, Walhovd KB. Structural brain changes in aging: courses, causes and cognitive consequences. Rev Neurosci. 2010;21(3):187–221. doi:10.1515/revneuro.2010.21.3.187
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1515/REVNEURO.2010.21.3.187&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20879692&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

66. 66.Binette P, Gonneaud J, Vogel JW, et al. Morphometric network differences in ageing versus Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Brain. 2020;143(2):635–649. doi:10.1093/brain/awz414
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awz414&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

67. 67.Zhan Y, Clements MS, Roberts RO, et al. Association of telomere length with general cognitive trajectories: a meta-analysis of four prospective cohort studies. Neurobiol Aging. 2018;69:111–116. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.05.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.05.004&link_type=DOI) 

68. 68.Pudas S, Josefsson M, Nordin Adolfsson A, et al. Short Leukocyte Telomeres, But Not Telomere Attrition Rates, Predict Memory Decline in the 20-Year Longitudinal Betula Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76(6):955–963. doi:10.1093/gerona/glaa322
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gerona/glaa322&link_type=DOI) 

69. 69.Wikgren M, Karlsson T, Nilbrink T, et al. APOE ε4 is associated with longer telomeres, and longer telomeres among ε4 carriers predicts worse episodic memory. Neurobiol Aging. 2012;33(2):335–344. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.03.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.03.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20395015&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000298171800012&link_type=ISI) 

70. 70.King KS, Kozlitina J, Rosenberg RN, Peshock RM, McColl RW, Garcia CK. Effect of leukocyte telomere length on total and regional brain volumes in a large population-based cohort. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71(10):1247–1254. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1926
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1926&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25090243&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

71. 71.Staffaroni AM, Tosun D, Lin J, et al. Telomere attrition is associated with declines in medial temporal lobe volume and white matter microstructure in functionally independent older adults. Neurobiol Aging. 2018;69:68–75. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.04.021
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.04.021&link_type=DOI) 

72. 72.Hemann MT, Strong MA, Hao LY, Greider CW. The shortest telomere, not average telomere length, is critical for cell viability and chromosome stability. Cell. 2001;107(1):67–77. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00504-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00504-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11595186&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000171453100010&link_type=ISI) 

73. 73.Hu Y, Fryatt GL, Ghorbani M, et al. Replicative senescence dictates the emergence of disease-associated microglia and contributes to Aβ pathology. Cell Rep. 2021;35(10):109228. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109228
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109228&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34107254&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2F2023.05.29.23290678.atom) 

74. 74.Palmos AB, Duarte RRR, Smeeth DM, et al. Telomere length and human hippocampal neurogenesis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020;45(13):2239–2247. doi:10.1038/s41386-020-00863-w
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41386-020-00863-w&link_type=DOI) 

75. 75.Rodríguez-Fernández B, Vilor-Tejedor N, Arenaza-Urquijo EM, et al. Genetically predicted telomere length and Alzheimer’s disease endophenotypes: a Mendelian randomization study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2022;14(1):167. doi:10.1186/s13195-022-01101-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13195-022-01101-9&link_type=DOI)