The relationship between cardiovascular risk and lifestyle activities on hippocampal volumes in normative aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the life-course perspective of popular aging models, few studies on healthy aging to date have examined both younger and older adulthood. The current study examined how cumulative vascular risk factors and self-reported levels of physical, social, and cognitive activity are associated with differences in hippocampal volumes in healthy younger and older adults. Methods: 34 neurologically healthy participants were separated into two age cohorts: a younger adult group (age 25-35, n = 17) and an older adult group (age 65-82, n = 17). Participants underwent a 3 T T1 MRI and completed a series of questionnaires. Voxel-based morphometry examined whole-brain grey matter density differences between groups. Hippocampal volumes were computed. Analyses examined the association between hippocampal volumes, cumulative vascular risk, and self-reported levels of physical, social, and cognitive activity, both within and across groups. Results: Between-group comparisons revealed greater cortical atrophy in older relative to young adults in regions including the left and right hippocampus and temporal fusiform cortex. Across-group analyses revealed a significant negative association between cardiovascular risk scores and bilateral hippocampal volumes across age groups. A significant negative association was identified between frequency of social activities and bilateral hippocampal volumes in older adults only. No significant associations were found between left or right hippocampal volumes and total, cognitive, or physical activities in both within- and across-group analyses. Conclusion: Greater cumulative vascular risk is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes across age cohorts. Findings suggest that social activities with low cognitive load may not be beneficial to structural brain outcomes in older age.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".