Home › Research › Risk factors
A framework for concepts of reserve and resilience in aging
Yaakov Stern, Marilyn Albert, Carol A Barnes, Roberto Cabeza, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Peter R Rapp. Neurobiology of aging, 2022-12-19
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The study of factors, across species, that allow some individuals to age more successfully than others has important implications for individual wellbeing as well as health education, policy and intervention. Design of studies and communication across investigators in this area has been hampered by a diversity of terminology. The Collaboratory on Research Definitions for Reserve and Resilience in Cognitive Aging and Dementia was funded by the National Institute on Aging and established in 2019 as a 3-year process of developing consensus definitions and research guidelines. The proposed Framework is based on an iterative process including 3 annual Workshops, focused workgroups, and input from numerous international investigators. It suggests the overarching term: resilience, and presents operational definitions for 3 concepts: cognitive reserve, brain maintenance, and brain reserve. Twelve pilot studies that integrate these definitions are presented. The use of a common vocabulary and operational definitions will facilitate even greater progress in understanding the factors that are associated with successful aging.
Key findings
- The use of a common vocabulary and operational definitions will facilitate even greater progress in understanding the factors that are associated with successful aging.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36653245) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Stern, Y., Albert, M., Barnes, C. A., Cabeza, R., Pascual-Leone, A., & Rapp, P. R. (2023). A framework for concepts of reserve and resilience in aging. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.10.015
Vancouver
Stern Y, Albert M, Barnes CA, Cabeza R, Pascual-Leone A, Rapp PR. A framework for concepts of reserve and resilience in aging. Neurobiology of aging. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.10.015. PMID: 36653245.
BibTeX
@article{stern2023-36653245,
author = {Stern, Yaakov and Albert, Marilyn and Barnes, Carol A and Cabeza, Roberto and Pascual-Leone, Alvaro and Rapp, Peter R},
title = {{A framework for concepts of reserve and resilience in aging}},
journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.10.015},
pmid = {36653245},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.10.015}
}