Cognitive reserve: Evaluating the relationship between WASI‐II Matrix Reasoning and tau accumulation using [<sup>18</sup>F]MK6240 in monolingual and bilingual individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive reserve (CR), a protective mechanism, allows for sustained cognitive functioning in older adults with greater experiential resources. Bilingualism, an indicator of greater cognitive reserve, has been found to preserve cognitive performance in older adults despite significant disease pathology. While the association with amyloid has been well acknowledged, the effect of tau is still under investigation. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the effect of bilingualism on individuals’ cognition and tau load. Method This study was conducted in 331 individuals (213 cognitively unimpaired (CU)) and 116 cognitively impaired (CI; 81 MCI and 35 AD) from the TRIAD cohort. 40% of the study participants were monolingual. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ‐ Second Edition (WASI‐II) was used to measure cognitive ability and reasoning in individuals. Accumulation of tau was assessed with [18F]MK6240 PET and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVRs) were calculated between 90 to 110 min post‐injection, using cerebellum grey matter as the reference region. A voxel‐based regression model evaluated the relationship between the WASI‐II score and the PET markers [18F]MK6240, correcting for age, sex, education, APOE, diagnosis and RFT was used to account for multiple comparisons. Result Our data showed that bilingual individuals demonstrated significantly higher scores on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ‐ Second Edition (WASI‐II) in comparison to monolingual individuals. A negative association between the cognitive score and tau accumulation was found in both monolingual and bilingual groupings. In the bilingual individuals, the associated regions were precuneus area, medial and lateral lobes. In the monolingual group, the associated regions were right frontal lobe, parietal lobe and cuneus areas. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that bilingual individuals are more resilient to the accumulation of tau; shown in higher scores in cognitive ability and reasoning despite having more regions affected than their monolingual counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".