Cited by 25Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCognitive Abilities and Testing

Amyloid burden and white matter hyperintensities mediate age-related cognitive differences

Open access
Dupont, Pénélope Sévigny, Bocti, Christian, Joannette, Maude, Lavallée, Marie Maxime, Nikelski, Jim, Vallet, Guillaume T., Chertkow, Howard, Joubert, Sven·2020·Neurobiology of Aging

Abstract

This study examined the additive versus synergistic contribution of beta-amyloid (Aβ) and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) across 7 cognitive domains in 104 cognitively normal older adults. It also measured the extent to which age-related differences in cognition are driven by measurable brain pathology. All participants underwent neuropsychological assessment along with magnetic resonance imaging and Pittsburg compound B-positron emission tomography imaging for Aβ quantification. WMH severity was quantified using the age-related white matter changes scale. Stepwise regressions, moderation, and mediation modeling were performed. Our findings show that Aβ deposition single-handedly predicts poorer episodic memory performance and that Aβ and WMHs contribute additively to poorer performance in working memory and language while carrying synergistic associations with executive functions and attention. Through mediation modeling, we demonstrated that the influence of age over episodic memory, working memory, executive functions, and language is fully mediated by brain pathology. This study permits to conclude that, in healthy older adults, (1) Aβ burden and WMHs have synergistic associations with some cognitive domains and (2) age-related differences in most cognitive domains are driven by brain pathology associated with dementia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.08.025

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 78 · Cited by 25

Authors
Dupont, P. S., Bocti, C., Joannette, M., Lavallée, M. M., Nikelski, J., Vallet, G. T., Chertkow, H., & Joubert, S.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (CA)
  • Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research (CA)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Neurobiology of Aging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
86
Pages
16-26
ISSN
0197-4580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2970618454
Cited by
25
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
amyloid-beta, white matter hyperintensities, age-related cognitive decline, episodic memory, working memory, executive function, language, attention, neuropathology, dementia, older adults, synergistic effect
MeSH terms
Cognitive Aging, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Neuroimaging, White Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review