Back

Fronto-parietal Network Segregation Predicts Maintained Cognition in the Cognitively Healthy Oldest-old (85+): evidence for dedifferentiation

Sims, S. A.; Faulkner, M. E.; Stewart, P.; Merritt, S.; Rezaei, R. F.; Bharadwaj, P. K.; Franchetti, M. K.; Raichlen, D. A.; Jessup, C. J.; Hishaw, G. A.; Van Etten, E. J.; Trouard, T. P.; Geldmacher, D.; Wadley, V. G.; Alperin, N.; Porges, E. S.; Woods, A. J.; Cohen, R. A.; Levin, B. E.; Rundek, T.; Alexander, G. E.; Visscher, K. M.

2021-10-07 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.10.05.463207 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Functional connections among groups of brain areas give insight into the brains organization. The cognitive effects of aging may relate to the brains large-scale organization. Examining the relationship between individual differences in brain organization and cognitive function in healthy older adults can help us understand how these networks support healthy cognitive aging. We investigated functional network segregation in 146 cognitively healthy participants aged 85+ in the McKnight Brain Aging Registry. We found that the segregation of the cortical association system and the segregation of individual networks within that system [the fronto-parietal network (FPN), cingulo-opercular network (CON) and default mode network (DMN)], were strong predictors of overall cognition and processing speed. We also provide a healthy oldest-old (85+) cortical parcellation that can be used in future work in this age group. This study shows that network segregation of the oldest-old brain is closely linked to cognitive performance. This work adds to the growing body of knowledge about differentiation in the aged brain by demonstrating that cognitive ability is associated with differentiated functional networks in very old individuals experiencing successful cognitive aging.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.