Poor Linguistic Ability May Indicate Risk of Alzheimer's

A series of longitudinal studies done with nuns out of the University of Kentucky shows a significant relationship between linguistic ability early in life and the development of Alzheimer's later in life. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Back in the late 90s a team at the University of Kentucky performed a series of long-term studies on nuns. And these studies have uncovered some surprising clues for possible Alzheimer’s risk.

One of these studies, published in theAnnals New York Academy of Sciences, found that poor linguistic ability early in life is associated with a risk of developing dementia later on.  

Researchers got their hands on archival autobiographical sketches written by 74 nuns, from Baltimore and Milwaukee, completed between ages 19 and 37 years. All died an average of 62 years after writing their sketches, and the nuns had agreed to donate their brains for study.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Here is what scientists found:   The number of ideas expressed in those autobiographies had a inverse association with the severity of dementia later in life. For instance in the sentence, “I was born in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on May 24, 1913, and was baptized in a church,” has seven ideas according to the researchers. Phrases like “I was born” and “I was baptized in church” all count toward what they call a measurement of “idea density.”

They found a strong association between those whose autobiographies had low idea density and presence of the Alzheimer-related tangles in the frontal, temporal or parietal lobe of the brain.  

Studies like this point to the possibility of detecting Alzheimer risk much earlier in life and may provide clues to the progression of the illness long before the more serious cognitive damage takes hold.

—Christie Nicholson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe