ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Stable individual differences dominate adult brain volume variation until later life.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual differences in the volumes of brain structures are often linked to various conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, and overall brain health. However, it remains unclear to what extent these differences reflect individual levels present from young adulthood or diverging aging trajectories from later ages. In this study, we analyze the aging dynamics of the volumes of six brain structures based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from a large cross-cohort longitudinal sample of cognitively healthy adults (n = 8,311 with 18,520 MRIs, ages from 18 to 97 years). From general assumptions about structural brain dynamics and measurement noise, a stochastic dynamical model was fitted to the data to estimate both the variability and persistence of structural changes across adulthood. Using this model, we calculated how much of the variance of volumetric differences between individuals can be attributed to stable levels from young adulthood versus systematic changes at older ages, as well as the theoretical sensitivity of longitudinal studies to detect individual differences in change. The findings were as follows: (1) Before age 60 years, inter-individual differences in neuroanatomical volumes almost exclusively reflect stable differences between individuals, while the influence from systematic differences in rate-of-change increases thereafter: up to 50% of the variation being due to differences in change at 80 years. In contrast, ventricular volume reflects differences in change from early adulthood. (2) Current brain-age models are unlikely to be sensitive to detect differences in aging trajectories. (3) Imaging studies have low reliability in detecting inter-individual brain changes before age 60 years. After 60 years, the study reliability increases sharply with longer intervals between scans and more modestly with additional intermediate observations. In conclusion, our results reinforce the view that it is critical to distinguish stable early adulthood levels from systematic differences in change when studying adult brain aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.