Differences Between Resting-State fMRI BOLD Variability and Default Mode Network Connectivity in Healthy Older and Younger Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Resting-state fMRI analyses have been used to examine functional connectivity in the aging brain. Recently, fluctuations in the fMRI BOLD signal have been used as a potential marker of integrity in neural systems. Despite its increasing popularity, the results of BOLD variability analyses and traditional seed-based functional connectivity analyses have rarely been compared. The current study examined fMRI BOLD signal variability and default mode network seed-based analyses in healthy older and younger adults to better understand the unique contributions of these methodological approaches. Methods: Thirty-four healthy participants were separated into a younger adult group (age 25–35, n = 17) and an older adult group (age 65+, n = 17). For each participant, a map of the standard deviation of the BOLD signal (SDBOLD) was derived. Group comparisons examined differences in resting-state SDBOLD in younger versus older adults. Seed-based analyses were used to examine differences between younger and older adults in the default mode network. Results: Between-group comparisons revealed significantly greater BOLD variability in widespread brain regions in older relative to younger adults. There were no significant differences between younger and older adults in the default mode network connectivity. Conclusion: The current findings align with an increasing number of studies reporting greater BOLD variability in older relative to younger adults. The current results also suggest that the traditional resting state examination methods may not detect nuanced age-related differences. Further large-scale studies in an adult lifespan sample are needed to better understand the functional relevance of the BOLD variability in normative aging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".