Phenotyping Superagers Using Resting-State fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Superagers are defined as older adults with episodic memory performance similar or superior to that in middle-aged adults. This study aimed to investigate the key differences in discriminative networks and their main nodes between superagers and cognitively average elderly controls. In addition, we sought to explore differences in sensitivity in detecting these functional activities across the networks at 3T and 7T MR imaging fields. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five subjects 80 years of age or older were screened using a detailed neuropsychological protocol, and 31 participants, comprising 14 superagers and 17 cognitively average elderly controls, were included for analysis. Participants underwent resting-state-fMRI at 3T and 7T MR imaging. A prediction classification algorithm using a penalized regression model on the measurements of the network was used to calculate the probabilities of a healthy older adult being a superager. Additionally, ORs quantified the influence of each node across preselected networks. RESULTS: The key networks that differentiated superagers and elderly controls were the default mode, salience, and language networks. The most discriminative nodes (ORs > 1) in superagers encompassed areas in the precuneus posterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, temporal pole, extrastriate superior cortex, and insula. The prediction classification model for being a superager showed better performance using the 7T compared with 3T resting-state-fMRI data set. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the functional connectivity in the default mode, salience, and language networks can provide potential imaging biomarkers for predicting superagers. The 7T field holds promise for the most appropriate study setting to accurately detect the functional connectivity patterns in superagers.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".