alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Digital health tools

Brain-predicted age in Down syndrome is associated with beta amyloid deposition and cognitive decline

Cole JH, Annus T, Wilson LR, Remtulla R, Hong YT, Fryer TD, Acosta-Cabronero J, Cardenas-Blanco A et al.. Neurobiology of aging, 2017-04-18

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are more likely to experience earlier onset of multiple facets of physiological aging. This includes brain atrophy, beta amyloid deposition, cognitive decline, and Alzheimer's disease-factors indicative of brain aging. Here, we employed a machine learning approach, using structural neuroimaging data to predict age (i.e., brain-predicted age) in people with DS (N = 46) and typically developing controls (N = 30). Chronological age was then subtracted from brain-predicted age to generate a brain-predicted age difference (brain-PAD) score. DS participants also underwent [ 11 C]-PiB positron emission tomography (PET) scans to index the levels of cerebral beta amyloid deposition, and cognitive assessment. Mean brain-PAD in DS participants' was +2.49 years, significantly greater than controls (p < 0.001). The variability in brain-PAD was associated with the presence and the magnitude of PiB-binding and levels of cognitive performance. Our study indicates that DS is associated with premature structural brain aging, and that age-related alterations in brain structure are associated with individual differences in the rate of beta amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Cole, J. H., Annus, T., Wilson, L. R., Remtulla, R., Hong, Y. T., Fryer, T. D., et al. (2017). Brain-predicted age in Down syndrome is associated with beta amyloid deposition and cognitive decline. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.04.006

Vancouver

Cole JH, Annus T, Wilson LR, Remtulla R, Hong YT, Fryer TD, et al. Brain-predicted age in Down syndrome is associated with beta amyloid deposition and cognitive decline. Neurobiology of aging. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.04.006. PMID: 28482213.

BibTeX

@article{cole2017-28482213,
  author  = {Cole, J. H. and Annus, T. and Wilson, L. R. and Remtulla, R. and Hong, Y. T. and Fryer, T. D. and Acosta-Cabronero, J. and Cardenas-Blanco, A. and others},
  title   = {{Brain-predicted age in Down syndrome is associated with beta amyloid deposition and cognitive decline}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.04.006},
  pmid    = {28482213},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.04.006}
}

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

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 46 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 (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 28482213)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 28 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 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.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “dosage”

80 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dosage”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 80 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →