ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Trajectory-based identification of cognitive-performance phenotypes across adulthood from psychophysiological testing.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidimensional psychophysiological batteries reveal substantial inter-individual variation in processing speed, accuracy, memory, executive control, and visuospatial performance. Because the present sample is predominantly young to middle-aged, the analysis is framed as adult cognitive-performance phenotyping rather than identification of clinical cognitive-aging stages. Methods: We analyzed a cross-sectional convenience sample of 1,117 adults (age 18-78 years; mean 31.4 ± 12.0 years; 65.8% women) assessed with a web-based psychophysiological battery. Forty-two cognitive, psychomotor, demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, and self-reported health variables were standardized after singular-value-decomposition imputation of one missing BMI value. DANCo and local PCA estimated intrinsic dimensionalities of 5.83 and 3.82, respectively. Six principal components (39.24% cumulative variance; seventh-component increment 3.67%) were used to fit an elastic principal tree. Between-branch differences were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis tests with Holm-adjusted Dunn comparisons or chi-square tests, with effect sizes. Assignment reproducibility was evaluated in 100 random 80% subsamples projected onto the fixed reference tree. The workflow is an unsupervised statistical/geometric structure-learning analysis rather than supervised prediction; no train/test predictive model or learned longitudinal dynamics are claimed. Results: Three connected branch profiles were identified: Cluster 0 ( Conclusion: Elastic principal trees represent cognitive-performance profiles as connected branches and provide a graph-ordering coordinate unavailable from ordinary discrete clustering. The results are exploratory, cross-sectional, and non-diagnostic and should not be generalized to neurodegenerative aging without older, clinically characterized, longitudinal cohorts. Among the examined alternatives, the original full-feature six-PC solution was retained for interpretation because the alternative solutions produced additional very small clusters that could not be characterized reliably.
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.