A comparison of white matter microstructure and correlates with neuropsychological measures in younger and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With a globally aging population, there is a need to better understand how brain structure relates to function in healthy older and younger adults. METHODS: 34 healthy participants divided into older (17; Mean = 70.9, SD = 5.4) and younger adults (17; Mean = 28.1, SD = 2.8) underwent diffusion-weighted imaging and neuropsychological assessment, including the California Verbal Learning Test 2nd Edition and the Trail Making Test (TMT-A and TMT-B). Differences in white matter microstructure for older and younger adults and the association between DTI metrics (fractional anisotropy, FA; mean diffusivity, MD) and cognitive performance were analyzed using tract-based spatial statistics (p < 0.05, corrected). RESULTS: Older adults had significantly lower FA and higher MD than younger adults in widespread brain regions. There was a significant negative correlation between executive function (TMT-B) and MD for older adults in the right superior/anterior corona radiata and the corpus callosum. No significant relationship was detected between DTI metrics and executive function in younger adults or with memory performance in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the need to examine brain-behaviour relationships as a function of age. Future studies should include comprehensive assessments in larger lifespan samples to better understand the aging brain.
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) | 0.001 | 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".