Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32477097›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2020

Time for a Systems Biological Approach to Cognitive Aging?-A Critical Review.

Deena Ebaid, Sheila G Crewther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. BrainAGE, brain health, and mental disorders: A systematic review.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Falls and SGLT-2 inhibitors in geriatric patients-A case report.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Deena EbaidDepartment of Psychology and Counselling, School of Psychology and Public Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sheila G CrewtherDepartment of Psychology and Counselling, School of Psychology and Public Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The underlying premise of current theories of cognitive decline with age tend to be primarily cognitive or biological explanations, with relatively few theories adequately integrating both aspects. Though literature has also emphasized the importance of several factors that contribute to cognitive aging including: (a) decline in sensory abilities; (b) the effect of motor speed on paper-pencil measures of cognitive speed; (c) the impact of level of education and physical activity; and (d) molecular biological changes that occur with age, these factors have seldom been implicated into any single theoretical model of cognitive aging. Indeed, such an integrated bio-cognitive model of aging has the potential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of attention, perception, learning, and memory across the lifespan. Thus, the aim of this review was to critically evaluate common theories of age-related cognitive decline and highlight the need for a more comprehensive systems neuroscience approach to cognitive aging.

Indexed as

biological agingcardiovascular healthcognitive agingcognitive declinesystems neurosciencetheories of aging

Identifiers

PMID32477097
PMCPMC7236912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.