Phenotyping Superagers Using Resting-State fMRI

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Onoda K,
   2. Ishihara M,
   3. Yamaguchi S

   . Decreased functional connectivity by aging is associated with cognitive decline. J Cogn Neurosci 2012;24:2186–98 doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00269 pmid:22784277

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Rogalski EJ,
   2. Gefen T,
   3. Shi J, et al

   . Youthful memory capacity in old brains: anatomic and genetic clues from the Northwestern SuperAging Project. J Cogn Neurosci 2013;25:29–36 doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00300 pmid:23198888

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. de Godoy LL,
   2. Alves CA,
   3. Saavedra JS, et al

   . Understanding brain resilience in superagers: a systematic review. Neuroradiology 2021;63:663–83 doi:10.1007/s00234-020-02562-1 pmid:32995945

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Park CH,
   2. Kim BR,
   3. Park HK, et al

   . Predicting superagers by machine learning classification based on the functional brain connectome using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cereb Cortex 2022;32:4183–90 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab474 pmid:34969093

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Sun FW,
   2. Stepanovic MR,
   3. Andreano J, et al

   . Youthful brains in older adults: preserved neuroanatomy in the default mode and salience networks contributes to youthful memory in superaging. J Neurosci 2016;36:9659–68 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1492-16.2016 pmid:27629716

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Rogalski EJ

   . Don’t forget—age is a relevant variable in defining SuperAgers. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2019;11:560–61 doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2019.05.008 pmid:31909169

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Wang X,
   2. Ren P,
   3. Baran TM, et al

   ; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Longitudinal functional brain mapping in supernormals. Cereb Cortex 2019;29:242–52 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx322 pmid:29186360

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Mevel K,
   2. Chételat G,
   3. Eustache F, et al

   . The default mode network in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2011;2011:1–9 doi:10.4061/2011/535816 pmid:21760988

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Raimondo L,
   2. Oliveira ĹAF,
   3. Heij J, et al

   . Advances in resting state fMRI acquisitions for functional connectomics. Neuroimage 2021;243:118503 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118503 pmid:34479041

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. de Godoy LL,
    2. Studart-Neto A,
    3. Wylezinska-Arridge M, et al

    . The brain metabolic signature in superagers using in vivo ¹H-MRS: a pilot study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1790–97 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7262 pmid:34446458

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Folstein MF,
    2. Folstein SE,
    3. McHugh PR

    . Mini-Mental State: a practical guide for grading the mental state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–98 doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 pmid:1202204

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Brucki S,
    2. Nitrini R,
    3. Caramelli P, et al

    . Suggestions for utilization of the Mini-Mental State Examination in Brazil [in Portuguese]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2003;61:777–81 doi:10.1590/s0004-282x2003000500014 pmid:14595482

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Pfeffer RI,
    2. Kurosaki TT,
    3. Harrah CH Jr., et al

    . Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol 1982;37:323–29 doi:10.1093/geronj/37.3.323 pmid:7069156

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. McKhann GM,
    2. Knopman DS,
    3. Chertkow H, et al

    . The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:263–69 doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005 pmid:21514250

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Albert MS,
    2. DeKosky ST,
    3. Dickson D, et al

    . The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:270–79 doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008 pmid:21514249

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Nitrini R,
    2. Caramelli P,
    3. Porto CS, et al

    . Brief cognitive battery in the diagnosis of mild Alzheimer’s disease in subjects with medium and high levels of education. Dement Neuropsychol 2007;1:32–36 doi:10.1590/S1980-57642008DN10100006 pmid:29213365

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Heaton RK,
    2. Miller SW,
    3. Taylor MJ, et al

    . Revised comprehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: demographically adjusted neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian adults. PAR. 2004. https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/357. Accessed April 10, 2022
18. 18.↵
    1. Shirk SD,
    2. Mitchell MB,
    3. Shaughnessy LW, et al

    . A web-based normative calculator for the uniform data set (UDS) neuropsychological test battery. Alzheimers Res Ther 2011;3:32 doi:10.1186/alzrt94 pmid:22078663

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Kraff O,
    2. Quick HH

    . 7T: Physics, safety, and potential clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:1573–89 doi:10.1002/jmri.25723 pmid:28370675

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Ribeiro de Paula D,
    2. Ziegler E,
    3. Abeyasinghe PM, et al

    . A method for independent component graph analysis of resting-state fMRI. Brain Behav 2017;7:e00626 doi:10.1002/brb3.626 pmid:28293468

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Nickerson LD,
    2. Smith SM,
    3. Öngür D, et al

    . Using dual regression to investigate network shape and amplitude in functional connectivity analyses. Front Neurosci 2017;11:115 doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00115 pmid:28348512

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Schaefer A,
    2. Kong R,
    3. Gordon EM, et al

    . Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Cereb Cortex 2018;28:3095–114 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx179 pmid:28981612

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Bielczyk NZ,
    2. Llera A,
    3. Buitelaar JK, et al

    . Increasing robustness of pairwise methods for effective connectivity in magnetic resonance imaging by using fractional moment series of BOLD signal distributions. Netw Neurosci 2019;3:1009–37 doi:10.1162/netn_a_00099 pmid:31637336

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Van Essen DC,
    2. Smith SM,
    3. Barch DM, et al

    ; WU-Minn HCP Consortium. The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: an overview. Neuroimage 2013;80:62–79 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041 pmid:23684880

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Snoek L,
    2. van der Miesen M,
    3. van der Leij A, et al

    . AOMIC-PIOP1. Openneuro. July 21, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18112/OPENNEURO.DS002785.V2.0.0. Accessed December 10, 2022
26. 26.↵
    1. Friedman J,
    2. Hastie T,
    3. Tibshirani R

    . Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw 2010;33:1–22 pmid:20808728

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Bland JM,
    2. Altman DG

    . Statistics notes: the odds ratio. BMJ 2000;320:1468 doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1468 pmid:10827061

    FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Isaacs BR,
    2. Mulder MJ,
    3. Groot JM, et al

    . 3 versus 7 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for parcellations of subcortical brain structures in clinical settings. PLoS One 2020;15:e0236208 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236208 pmid:33232325

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Beisteiner R,
    2. Robinson S,
    3. Wurnig M, et al

    . Clinical fMRI: evidence for a 7T benefit over 3T. Neuroimage 2011;57:1015–21 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.010 pmid:21620980

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. van der Zwaag W,
    2. Francis S,
    3. Head K, et al

    . fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: characterising BOLD signal changes. Neuroimage 2009;47:1425–34 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.015 pmid:19446641

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Colizoli O,
    2. de Gee JW,
    3. van der Zwaag W, et al

    . Comparing fMRI responses measured at 3 versus 7 Tesla across human cortex, striatum, and brainstem. May 14, 2020. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.12.090175. Accessed April 15, 2022
32. 32.↵
    1. Hale JR,
    2. Brookes MJ,
    3. Hall EL, et al

    . Comparison of functional connectivity in default mode and sensorimotor networks at 3 and 7T. MAGMA 2010;23:339–49 doi:10.1007/s10334-010-0220-0 pmid:20625794

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Morris LS,
    2. Kundu P,
    3. Costi S, et al

    . Ultra-high field MRI reveals mood-related circuit disturbances in depression: a comparison between 3-Tesla and 7-Tesla. Transl Psychiatry 2019;9:94 doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0425-6 pmid:30770788

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Zhang J,
    2. Andreano JM,
    3. Dickerson BC, et al

    . Stronger functional connectivity in the default mode and salience networks is associated with youthful memory in superaging. Cereb Cortex 2020;30:72–84 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz071 pmid:31058917

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Grady C,
    2. Sarraf S,
    3. Saverino C, et al

    . Age differences in the functional interactions among the default, frontoparietal control, and dorsal attention networks. Neurobiol Aging 2016;41:159–72 doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.02.020 pmid:27103529

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Zuo XN,
    3. Ng KK, et al

    . Distinct BOLD variability changes in the default mode and salience networks in Alzheimer’s disease spectrum and associations with cognitive decline. Sci Rep 2020;10:6457 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63540-4 pmid:32296093

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Wu L,
    2. Soder RB,
    3. Schoemaker D, et al

    . Resting state executive control network adaptations in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis 2014;40:993–1004 doi:10.3233/JAD-131574 pmid:24583406

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Aertsen A

    . Insights into hippocampal network function. Nat Comput Sci 2021;1:782–83 doi:10.1038/s43588-021-00159-z

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Tomasi D,
    2. Volkow ND

    . Resting functional connectivity of language networks: characterization and reproducibility. Mol Psychiatry 2012;17:841–54 doi:10.1038/mp.2011.177 pmid:22212597

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Mueller KD,
    2. Koscik RL,
    3. Turkstra LS, et al

    . Connected language in late middle-aged adults at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2016;54:1539–50 doi:10.3233/JAD-160252 pmid:27636838

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Montembeault M,
    2. Chapleau M,
    3. Jarret J, et al

    . Differential language network functional connectivity alterations in Alzheimer’s disease and the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Cortex 2019;117:284–98 doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2019.03.018 pmid:31034993

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Harrison TM,
    2. Maass A,
    3. Baker SL, et al

    . Brain morphology, cognition, and β-amyloid in older adults with superior memory performance. Neurobiol Aging 2018;67:162–70 doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.03.024 pmid:29665578

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Gefen T,
    2. Peterson M,
    3. Papastefan ST, et al

    . Morphometric and histologic substrates of cingulate integrity in elders with exceptional memory capacity. J Neurosci 2015;35:1781–91 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2998-14.2015 pmid:25632151

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    1. van den Heuvel MP,
    2. Sporns O

    . Network hubs in the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci 2013;17:683–96 doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.012 pmid:24231140

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
45. 45.↵
    1. Schneider F,
    2. Bermpohl F,
    3. Heinzel A, et al

    . The resting brain and our self: self-relatedness modulates resting state neural activity in cortical midline structures. Neuroscience 2008;157:120–31 doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.08.014 pmid:18793699

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
46. 46.↵
    1. Amodio DM,
    2. Frith CD

    . Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7:268–77 doi:10.1038/nrn1884 pmid:16552413

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    1. Krall SC,
    2. Rottschy C,
    3. Oberwelland E, et al

    . The role of the right temporoparietal junction in attention and social interaction as revealed by ALE meta-analysis. Brain Struct Funct 2015;220:587–604 doi:10.1007/s00429-014-0803-z pmid:24915964

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Cook Maher A,
    2. Kielb S,
    3. Loyer E, et al

    . Psychological well-being in elderly adults with extraordinary episodic memory. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186413 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186413 pmid:29059208

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Desai RH,
    3. Graves WW, et al

    . Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 2009;19:2767–96 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp055 pmid:19329570

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
50. 50.↵
    1. La Corte V,
    2. Sperduti M,
    3. Malherbe C, et al

    . Cognitive decline and reorganization of functional connectivity in healthy aging: the pivotal role of the salience network in the prediction of age and cognitive performances. Front Aging Neurosci 2016;8:204 doi:10.3389/fnagi.2016.00204] pmid:27616991

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Orban GA

    . Higher order visual processing in macaque extrastriate cortex. Physiol Rev 2008;88:59–89 doi:10.1152/physrev.00008.2007 pmid:18195083

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
52. 52.↵
    1. Jones SE,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Law M

    . Neuroimaging at 3T vs 7T: is it really worth it? Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2021;29:1–12 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2020.09.001 pmid:33237010

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Balchandani P,
    2. Naidich TP

    . Ultra-high-field MR neuroimaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1204–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4180 pmid:25523591

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
54. 54.↵
    1. Sladky R,
    2. Baldinger P,
    3. Kranz GS, et al

    . High-resolution functional MRI of the human amygdala at 7 T. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:728–33 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.09.025 pmid:22138120

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Newton AT,
    2. Rogers BP,
    3. Gore JC, et al

    . Improving measurement of functional connectivity through decreasing partial volume effects at 7 T. Neuroimage 2012;59:2511–17 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.096 pmid:21925611

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    1. Vu AT,
    2. Jamison K,
    3. Glasser MF, et al

    . Tradeoffs in pushing the spatial resolution of fMRI for the 7T Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage 2017;154:23–32 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.049 pmid:27894889

    CrossRefPubMed