Home › Research › Risk factors
Brain reserve contributes to distinguishing preclinical Alzheimer's stages 1 and 2
Zerrin Yildirim, Firuze Delen, David Berron, Hannah Baumeister, Gabriel Ziegler, Hartmut Schütze, Wenzel Glanz, Laura Dobisch et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023-02-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
In asymptomatic individuals, brain volumes of hippocampal subfields and of the parahippocampal cortex were numerically larger in stage 1 compared to HCs, whereas the opposite was the case in individuals with SCD. MANOVAs with volumes as dependent data and age, sex, years of education, and DELCODE site as covariates showed a significant interaction between diagnosis (asymptomatic versus SCD) and amyloid status (Aß42/40 negative versus positive) for hippocampal subfields. Post hoc paired comparisons taking into account the same covariates showed that dentate gyrus and CA1 volumes in SCD were significantly smaller in amyloid-positive than negative individuals. In contrast, CA1 volumes were significantly (p = 0.014) larger in stage 1 compared with HCs. These data indicate that HCs and stages 1 and 2 do not correspond to linear brain volume reduction. Instead, stage 1 is associated with larger than expected volumes of hippocampal subfields in the face of amyloid pathology. This indicates a brain reserve mechanism in stage 1 that enables individuals with amyloid pathologic change to be cognitively normal and asymptomatic without subjective cognitive decline.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Yildirim, Z., Delen, F., Berron, D., Baumeister, H., Ziegler, G., Schütze, H., et al. (2023). Brain reserve contributes to distinguishing preclinical Alzheimer's stages 1 and 2. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01187-9
Vancouver
Yildirim Z, Delen F, Berron D, Baumeister H, Ziegler G, Schütze H, et al. Brain reserve contributes to distinguishing preclinical Alzheimer's stages 1 and 2. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2023. doi:10.1186/s13195-023-01187-9. PMID: 36855049.
BibTeX
@article{yildirim2023-36855049,
author = {Yildirim, Zerrin and Delen, Firuze and Berron, David and Baumeister, Hannah and Ziegler, Gabriel and Schütze, Hartmut and Glanz, Wenzel and Dobisch, Laura and others},
title = {{Brain reserve contributes to distinguishing preclinical Alzheimer's stages 1 and 2}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-023-01187-9},
pmid = {36855049},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01187-9}
}
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
- In asymptomatic individuals, brain volumes of hippocampal subfields and of the parahippocampal cortex were numerically larger in stage 1 compared to HCs, whereas the opposite was the case in individuals with SCD.
- MANOVAs with volumes as dependent data and age, sex, years of education, and DELCODE site as covariates showed a significant interaction between diagnosis (asymptomatic versus SCD) and amyloid status (Aß42/40 negative versus positive) for hippocampal subfields.
- Post hoc paired comparisons taking into account the same covariates showed that dentate gyrus and CA1 volumes in SCD were significantly smaller in amyloid-positive than negative individuals.
- In contrast, CA1 volumes were significantly (p = 0.014) larger in stage 1 compared with HCs.
- These data indicate that HCs and stages 1 and 2 do not correspond to linear brain volume reduction.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over 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 | 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36855049) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 32 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “diffusion”
172 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 172 tagged studies.