Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
The aging hippocampus: a multi-level analysis in the rat
Driscoll I, Howard SR, Stone JC, Monfils MH, Tomanek B, Brooks WM, Sutherland RJ.. Neuroscience, 2006-03-29
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
In the current experiment we conducted a multi-level analysis of age-related characteristics in the hippocampus of young adult (3 months), middle-aged (12 months), and old (24 months) Fisher 344xBrown Norway hybrid (FBNF1) rats. We examined the relationships between aging, hippocampus, and memory using a combination of behavioral, non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy, and postmortem neuroanatomical measures in the same rats. Aging was associated with functional deficits on hippocampus-dependent memory tasks, accompanied by structural alterations observed both in vivo (magnetic resonance imaging-hippocampal volume) and postmortem (dentate gyrus neuronal density and neurogenesis). Neuronal metabolic integrity, assessed by levels of N-acetylaspartate with magnetic resonance spectroscopy, was however, preserved. Further, our results suggest that neurogenesis (doublecortin) seems to be related to both performance deficits on hippocampus-dependent tasks and hippocampal volume reduction. The observed pattern of age-related alterations closely resembles that previously reported in humans and suggests FBNF1 rats to be a useful model of normal human aging.
Key findings
- Aging was associated with functional deficits on hippocampus-dependent memory tasks, accompanied by structural alterations observed both in vivo (magnetic resonance imaging-hippocampal volume) and postmortem (dentate gyrus neuronal density and neurogenesis).
- Further, our results suggest that neurogenesis (doublecortin) seems to be related to both performance deficits on hippocampus-dependent tasks and hippocampal volume reduction.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “rat”) — scores zero |
| 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 16564634) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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. The record names 7 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.
APA 7th
Driscoll, I., Howard, SR., Stone, J. C., Monfils, M. H., Tomanek, B., Brooks, W. M., et al. (2006). The aging hippocampus: a multi-level analysis in the rat. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.040
Vancouver
Driscoll I, Howard SR, Stone JC, Monfils MH, Tomanek B, Brooks WM, et al. The aging hippocampus: a multi-level analysis in the rat. Neuroscience. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.040. PMID: 16564634.
BibTeX
@article{driscoll2006-16564634,
author = {Driscoll, I. and Howard, SR. and Stone, J. C. and Monfils, M. H. and Tomanek, B. and Brooks, W. M. and Sutherland, R. J.},
title = {{The aging hippocampus: a multi-level analysis in the rat}},
journal = {Neuroscience},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.040},
pmid = {16564634},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.040}
}