Home › Research › Digital health tools
Brain-age in midlife is associated with accelerated biological aging and cognitive decline in a longitudinal birth cohort
Elliott ML, Belsky DW, Knodt AR, Ireland D, Melzer TR, Poulton R, Ramrakha S, Caspi A et al.. Molecular psychiatry, 2019-12-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. BrainAGE has been proposed as a biomarker of age-related deterioration of the brain. Having an older brainAGE has been linked to Alzheimer's, dementia, and mortality. However, these findings are largely based on cross-sectional associations which can confuse age differences with cohort differences. To illuminate the validity of brainAGE as a biomarker of accelerated brain aging, a study is needed of a large cohort all born in the same year who nevertheless vary on brainAGE. In the Dunedin Study, a population-representative 1972-73 birth cohort, we measured brainAGE at age 45 years, as well as the pace of biological aging and cognitive decline in longitudinal data from childhood to midlife (N = 869). In this cohort, all chronological age 45 years, brainAGE was measured reliably (ICC = 0.81) and ranged from 24 to 72 years. Those with older midlife brainAGEs tended to have poorer cognitive function in both adulthood and childhood, as well as impaired brain health at age 3. Furthermore, those with older brainAGEs had an accelerated pace of biological aging, older facial appearance, and early signs of cognitive decline from childhood to midlife. These findings help to validate brainAGE as a potential surrogate biomarker for midlife intervention studies that seek to measure dementia-prevention efforts in midlife. However, the findings also caution against the assumption that brainAGE scores represent only age-related deterioration of the brain as they may also index central nervous system variation present since childhood.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Elliott, M. L., Belsky, D. W., Knodt, A. R., Ireland, D., Melzer, T. R., Poulton, R., et al. (2021). Brain-age in midlife is associated with accelerated biological aging and cognitive decline in a longitudinal birth cohort. Molecular psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0626-7
Vancouver
Elliott ML, Belsky DW, Knodt AR, Ireland D, Melzer TR, Poulton R, et al. Brain-age in midlife is associated with accelerated biological aging and cognitive decline in a longitudinal birth cohort. Molecular psychiatry. 2021. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0626-7. PMID: 31822815.
BibTeX
@article{elliott2021-31822815,
author = {Elliott, M. L. and Belsky, D. W. and Knodt, A. R. and Ireland, D. and Melzer, T. R. and Poulton, R. and Ramrakha, S. and Caspi, A. and others},
title = {{Brain-age in midlife is associated with accelerated biological aging and cognitive decline in a longitudinal birth cohort}},
journal = {Molecular psychiatry},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1038/s41380-019-0626-7},
pmid = {31822815},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0626-7}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, these findings are largely based on cross-sectional associations which can confuse age differences with cohort differences.
- These findings help to validate brainAGE as a potential surrogate biomarker for midlife intervention studies that seek to measure dementia-prevention efforts in midlife.
Why it matters
In this birth cohort, individuals with older midlife brainAGE had poorer cognitive function in adulthood and childhood and an accelerated pace of biological aging and early signs of cognitive decline. The authors state these findings help validate brainAGE as a potential surrogate biomarker for midlife intervention studies, but no treatment, cure, or prevention was tested.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants869
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 63/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Molecular psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 869 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2019, the record says 2021; OpenAlex values not used) — 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 | 2 / 6 | Cited by 3 other studies in this library |
| 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 31822815) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 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.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.