OBJECTIVE: White matter hyperintensities (WMH), visualized on T2-weighted MRI, are thought to reflect small-vessel vascular disease. Much like other markers of brain disease, the association between WMH and cognition is imperfect. The concept of reserve may account for this imperfect relationship. The purpose of this study was to test the reserve hypothesis in the association between WMH severity and cognition. We hypothesized that individuals with higher amounts of reserve would be able to tolerate greater amounts of pathology than those with lower reserve. METHODS: Neurologically healthy older adults (n=717) from a community-based study received structural MRI, neuropsychological assessment, and evaluation of reserve. WMH volume was quantified algorithmically. We derived latent constructs representing four neuropsychological domains, a measure of cognitive reserve, and a measure of brain reserve. Measures of cognitive and brain reserve consisted of psychosocial (e.g., education) and anthropometric (e.g., craniometry) variables, respectively. RESULTS: Increased WMH volume was associated with poorer cognition and higher cognitive and brain reserve were associated with better cognition. Controlling for speed/executive function or for language function, those with higher estimates of cognitive reserve had significantly greater degrees of WMH volume, particularly among women. Controlling for cognitive functioning across all domains, individuals with higher estimates of brain reserve had significantly greater WMH volume. CONCLUSIONS: For any given level of cognitive function, those with higher reserve had more pathology in the form of WMH, suggesting that they are better able to cope with pathology than those with lower reserve. Both brain reserve and cognitive reserve appear to mitigate the impact of pathology on cognition.
OBJECTIVE:White matter hyperintensities (WMH), visualized on T2-weighted MRI, are thought to reflect small-vessel vascular disease. Much like other markers of brain disease, the association between WMH and cognition is imperfect. The concept of reserve may account for this imperfect relationship. The purpose of this study was to test the reserve hypothesis in the association between WMH severity and cognition. We hypothesized that individuals with higher amounts of reserve would be able to tolerate greater amounts of pathology than those with lower reserve. METHODS: Neurologically healthy older adults (n=717) from a community-based study received structural MRI, neuropsychological assessment, and evaluation of reserve. WMH volume was quantified algorithmically. We derived latent constructs representing four neuropsychological domains, a measure of cognitive reserve, and a measure of brain reserve. Measures of cognitive and brain reserve consisted of psychosocial (e.g., education) and anthropometric (e.g., craniometry) variables, respectively. RESULTS: Increased WMH volume was associated with poorer cognition and higher cognitive and brain reserve were associated with better cognition. Controlling for speed/executive function or for language function, those with higher estimates of cognitive reserve had significantly greater degrees of WMH volume, particularly among women. Controlling for cognitive functioning across all domains, individuals with higher estimates of brain reserve had significantly greater WMH volume. CONCLUSIONS: For any given level of cognitive function, those with higher reserve had more pathology in the form of WMH, suggesting that they are better able to cope with pathology than those with lower reserve. Both brain reserve and cognitive reserve appear to mitigate the impact of pathology on cognition.
Authors: M X Tang; P Cross; H Andrews; D M Jacobs; S Small; K Bell; C Merchant; R Lantigua; R Costa; Y Stern; R Mayeux Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-01-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Janet E Farmer; Stephen M Kanne; Jennifer S Haut; Jane Williams; Brick Johnstone; Karen Kirk Journal: Dev Neuropsychol Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: Faith M Gunning-Dixon; Adam M Brickman; Janice C Cheng; George S Alexopoulos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Steven M Greenberg; Thomas Grabowski; M Edip Gurol; Maureen E Skehan; R N Kaveer Nandigam; John A Becker; Monica Garcia-Alloza; Claudia Prada; Matthew P Frosch; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan; Eric E Smith; Keith A Johnson Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Alan J Thomas; John T O'Brien; Sue Davis; Clive Ballard; Robert Barber; Rajesh N Kalaria; Robert H Perry Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2002-09
Authors: Natalie L Marchant; Bruce R Reed; Charles S DeCarli; Cindee M Madison; Michael W Weiner; Helena C Chui; William J Jagust Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Kejia Cai; Rongwen Tain; Sandhitsu Das; Frederick C Damen; Yi Sui; Tibor Valyi-Nagy; Mark A Elliott; Xiaohong J Zhou Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Miriam E Shapiro; Jeannette R Mahoney; Deena Peyser; Barry S Zingman; Joe Verghese Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Chuanhui Dong; Nooshin Nabizadeh; Michelle Caunca; Ying Kuen Cheung; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Charles DeCarli; Ralph L Sacco; Yaakov Stern; Clinton B Wright Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Richard N Jones; Jennifer Manly; M Maria Glymour; Dorene M Rentz; Angela L Jefferson; Yaakov Stern Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Eero Vuoksimaa; Matthew S Panizzon; Chi-Hua Chen; Lisa T Eyler; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Mark Joseph A Fiecas; Bruce Fischl; Carol E Franz; Michael D Grant; Amy J Jak; Michael J Lyons; Michael C Neale; Wesley K Thompson; Ming T Tsuang; Hong Xian; Anders M Dale; William S Kremen Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.139