Neural underpinnings of cognitive resilience in Brazilian SuperAgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although cognitive decline is a trait related to aging, some individuals are resilient to the aging process, defined as SuperAgers. Studying the neural underpinnings of SuperAgers may improve the understanding of AD pathology. In this study, our aim was to analyze amyloid and neurodegeneration imaging biomarkers in SuperAgers. Method We recruited 228 Brazilian adults and older adults to participate in this study. They underwent a neuropsychological battery, followed by PET [11C] PIB and [18F]FDG imaging. Individuals were classified as SuperAgers when at 80 years of age or above, episodic memory scores similar to 50‐65 normative data, and within 1 SD of normative values for age and education for executive functions, fluency and naming. Amyloid load and glucose metabolism standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was calculated using cerebellar crus and whole brain, respectively. SUVR values from predefined AD meta‐ROI for PIB (prefrontal, orbitofrontal, parietal, temporal, anterior and posterior cingulate and precuneus) and FDG (angular gyrus, posterior cingulate, and inferior temporal cortical) were extracted. No covariates were included in the models since sex and education were paired. Result After initial screening, a total of 10 young controls (C50), 10 age‐matched controls (C80) and 10 SuperAgers (Table) SA, mean age 82.1±2.51 years) were included. Educational levels were similar between groups (p>0.05), while episodic memory scores were similar only between SA (10.7±3.4) and C50 (11.4±2) but higher than C80 (10.5±3.4, p<0.001). Amyloid SUVR was lower in C50 than older groups, but similar between SA and C80 (SA: 1.25±0.2, C80: 1.32±0.3, C50: 1.07±0.1, p = 0.03). FDG SUVR was increased in SA (Figure) when compared with C80 (1.06±0.1 vs. 1.01±0.1, p = 0.02), but similar to C50 (1.03±0.1, p = 0.21). Conclusion Our findings indicate that SuperAgers are more resilient to amyloid burden and seem to cope with AD pathology by increasing brain glucose metabolism. The higher FDG metabolism seen in SuperAgers compared with age‐matched controls may reflect a compensatory biological response, which ultimately leads to cognitive resilience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".