Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108AGING IN THE 21S T CENTURY 42 this seems to be explained by the effect of educa- tion and APOE e4 (Plassman et al. 2007). Similar risks are identified in the study of incident, or new cases of dementia (Plassman et al. 2011), except that male gender is significantly associ- ated with incident AD. Further, race is not a risk factor for new diagnosis of CIND, AD, or other dementias. More recently, Hurd et al. (2013) used a predicted probability of dementia in the HRS, validated against ADAMS. Nonwhite race, female gender, single status, older age, lower educational level, and lower household income are associated with greater dementia risk in 2010. While there are race differences in cogni- tive functioning at baseline, Castora-Binkley et al. (2015) find no racial difference in the rate of cognitive decline over time. Interestingly, as individuals begin to expe- rience symptoms of cognitive impairment, they appear to be aware of it. In addition to objective tests, the HRS asks participants to give their own subjective assessments of their memory. Hülür et al. (2015) find that those who report steeper declines of subjective memory indeed show steeper declines of memory performance over time. Education Higher educational levels have long been thought to confer protection against cognitive decline in older adults. A number of studies use data from the oldest HRS cohort to evaluate the effects of education on late-life cognitive functioning. As expected, higher educational levels are associated with higher cognitive functioning, but these studies show that the effect of education does not affect the rate of decline in cognitive functioning (Alley et al. 2007). Similarly, over time, the risk difference between those with lower and higher educational levels remains the same (Karlamang- la et al. 2009). Figure 2-5 demonstrates the strong relation- ship between educational level and cognition. The figure shows a mean cognition score in 2012 (that goes from zero to 27) across four levels of education, and across four different age groups. At every age group, there is a positive association between education and cognitive functioning. Interestingly, the mean score for those with less than a high-school education at ages 55 to 64 is the same as that for those with a college degree or more at age 85 and older. The benefits of education for dementia risk appear to span generations. Rogers et al. (2009) use ADAMS data combined with parental education from the HRS to investigate the effects of mother’s education on dementia risk. Compared to participants whose mothers had at least eight years of education, those with mothers having fewer than eight years of education have a significantly elevated risk of CIND or dementia, 31% versus 45%, respectively. This strong risk re- mains even after taking into account other known dementia risk factors, such as the APOE e4 allele and the individual’s own educational level. The APOE e4 allele is also associated with an increased risk of dementia. FIGURE 2-5  Mean cognitive score by age and educational level: 2012 Source: HRS 2012. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Score Age: 55-64 Age: 65-74 Age: 75-84 Age: 85+