Home › Research › Risk factors
Cognitive reserve and cortical thickness in preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Corinne Pettigrew, Anja Soldan, Yuxin Zhu, Mei-Cheng Wang, Timothy Brown, Michael Miller, Marilyn Albert, BIOCARD Research Team. Brain imaging and behavior, 2017-04
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
This study examined whether cognitive reserve (CR) alters the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of cortical thickness and risk of progression from normal cognition to the onset of clinical symptoms associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The analyses included 232 participants from the BIOCARD study. Participants were cognitively normal and largely middle aged (M age = 56.5) at their baseline MRI scan. After an average of 11.8 years of longitudinal follow-up, 48 have developed clinical symptoms of MCI or dementia (M time from baseline to clinical symptom onset = 7.0 years). Mean thickness was measured over eight 'AD vulnerable' cortical regions, and cognitive reserve was indexed by a composite score consisting of years of education, reading, and vocabulary measures. Using Cox regression models, CR and cortical thickness were each independently associated with risk of clinical symptom onset within 7 years of baseline, suggesting that the neuronal injury occurring proximal to symptom onset has a direct association with clinical outcomes, regardless of CR. In contrast, there was a significant interaction between CR and mean cortical thickness for risk of progression more than 7 years from baseline, suggesting that individuals with high CR are better able to compensate for cortical thinning that is beginning to occur at the very earliest phase of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Pettigrew, C., Soldan, A., Zhu, Y., Wang, M.-C., Brown, T., Miller, M., et al. (2017). Cognitive reserve and cortical thickness in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Brain imaging and behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9581-y
Vancouver
Pettigrew C, Soldan A, Zhu Y, Wang M.-C, Brown T, Miller M, et al. Cognitive reserve and cortical thickness in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Brain imaging and behavior. 2017. doi:10.1007/s11682-016-9581-y. PMID: 27544202.
BibTeX
@article{pettigrew2017-27544202,
author = {Pettigrew, Corinne and Soldan, Anja and Zhu, Yuxin and Wang, Mei-Cheng and Brown, Timothy and Miller, Michael and Albert, Marilyn and {BIOCARD Research Team}},
title = {{Cognitive reserve and cortical thickness in preclinical Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Brain imaging and behavior},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1007/s11682-016-9581-y},
pmid = {27544202},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9581-y}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- This study examined whether cognitive reserve (CR) alters the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of cortical thickness and risk of progression from normal cognition to the onset of clinical symptoms associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
- Using Cox regression models, CR and cortical thickness were each independently associated with risk of clinical symptom onset within 7 years of baseline, suggesting that the neuronal injury occurring proximal to symptom onset has a direct association with clinical outcomes, regardless of CR.
- In contrast, there was a significant interaction between CR and mean cortical thickness for risk of progression more than 7 years from baseline, suggesting that individuals with high CR are better able to compensate for cortical thinning that is beginning to occur at the very earliest phase of AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants232
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 36 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Brain imaging and behavior) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 232 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) |
| 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 27544202) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 36 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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.