4.5 Article

Estimated maximal and current brain volume predict cognitive ability in old age

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2726-2733

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.05.015

关键词

Aging; Structural brain imaging biomarkers; Brain volume; Life course cognitive ability; IQ

资金

  1. Research Into Ageing programme grant
  2. Age UK
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. Scottish Funding Council through the SINAPSE Collaboration
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  7. Economic and Social Research Council
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/K026992/1, G1001245, G0700704] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. MRC [G1001245, G0700704] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain tissue deterioration is a significant contributor to lower cognitive ability in later life; however, few studies have appropriate data to establish how much influence prior brain volume and prior cognitive performance have on this association. We investigated the associations between structural brain imaging biomarkers, including an estimate of maximal brain volume, and detailed measures of cognitive ability at age 73 years in a large (N = 620), generally healthy, community-dwelling population. Cognitive ability data were available from age 11 years. We found positive associations (r) between general cognitive ability and estimated brain volume in youth (male, 0.28; females, 0.12), and in measured brain volume in later life (males, 0.27; females, 0.26). Our findings show that cognitive ability in youth is a strong predictor of estimated prior and measured current brain volume in old age but that these effects were the same for both white and gray matter. As 1 of the largest studies of associations between brain volume and cognitive ability with normal aging, this work contributes to the wider understanding of how some early-life factors influence cognitive aging. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据