Cited by 19Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Aging-related microstructural alterations along the length of the cingulum bundle

Open access
Sibilia, Francesca, Kehoe, Elizabeth G., Farrell, Dervla, Kerskens, Christian, O'Neill, Desmond, McNulty, Jonathan P., Mullins, Paul, Bokde, Arun L.W.·2017·Brain Connectivity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the aging-related structural changes of the cingulum, one of the major components of the limbic network, which has a critical role in emotion, attention, and memory. Thirty-five healthy young adults (22.3 ± 2.7 years) and 33 healthy older adults (69.5 ± 3.5 years) were recruited. Diffusion weighted imaging data were acquired with a b-value = 2000 sec/mm2 and 61 diffusion directions and 4 non-weighted images. The fiber directions in each voxel were based on the constrained spherical deconvolution model. The cingulum was segmented into three branches using deterministic tractography (subgenual, retrosplenial, and parahippocampal), using a region-of-interest-based approach. Atlas-based tractography was the method used to obtain the output tracts of each branch of the cingulum. Along-tract analysis was performed on each branch. We found a statistically significant change with aging in the left subgenual branch of the cingulum with a decrease in fractional anisotropy and axial diffusivity, as well as an increase in radial diffusivity. No statistically significant differences were found between young and older groups in the other two branches. This study adds to knowledge about how the cingulum changes structurally along its entire length during aging in a more detailed way, thanks to an advanced methodological approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/brain.2017.0493

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Some evidence is consistent with an age-related gradient along the long axis of the cingulum, in which frontal parts of the bundle appear most affected.

    “Some of the evidence is consistent with an age-related gradient along the long axis of the cingulum, in which frontal parts of the bundle appear most affected (Catheline et al., 2010; Mårtensson et al., 2018; Sibilia et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2008; see for review Chua et al., 2008).”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Sibilia et al., 2017

    The available passages contain the title and publication metadata but no findings about which part of the cingulum is most affected. Searches for frontal, anterior–posterior, and age-related differences returned no results passage that could establish the claimed gradient. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Older versus younger adults exhibited lower FA and AD as well as increased RD in the left subgenual cingulum, but not in the retrosplenial or parahippocampal cingulum.

    “For example, older versus younger adults exhibited lower FA and AD as well as increased RD in the left subgenual cingulum, but not in the retrosplenial or parahippocampal cingulum (Sibilia et al., 2017).”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Sibilia et al., 2017

    The passages available from our copy are bibliographic metadata (labeled Abstract, no page), not study results. Searches for FA, AD, RD, the left subgenual cingulum, and the retrosplenial and parahippocampal cingulum found no passage reporting the claimed comparison, so it cannot be verified from this copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sibilia, F., Kehoe, E. G., Farrell, D., Kerskens, C., O'Neill, D., McNulty, J. P., Mullins, P., & Bokde, A. L. W.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Dublin, Ireland.
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Sibilia, Francesca
Venue
Brain Connectivity
Published
2017-08
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
366-372
ISSN
  • 2158-0014 (ISSN-L)
  • 2158-0022
OpenAlex
W2623655077
Cited by
19
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Connectivity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
cingulum, aging, white matter microstructure, fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, radial diffusivity, limbic system, deterministic tractography, constrained spherical deconvolution, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, 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