Erin E Sundermann1, Pauline M Maki2, Leah H Rubin2, Richard B Lipton2, Susan Landau2, Anat Biegon2. 1. From the Einstein Aging Study and the Department of Neurology (E.E.S., R.B.L.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Department of Psychiatry (P.M.M., L.H.R.), University of Illinois at Chicago; Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (S.L.), University of California, Berkeley; and Department of Neurology (A.B.), State University of New York, Stony Brook. erin.sundermann@einstein.yu.edu. 2. From the Einstein Aging Study and the Department of Neurology (E.E.S., R.B.L.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Department of Psychiatry (P.M.M., L.H.R.), University of Illinois at Chicago; Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (S.L.), University of California, Berkeley; and Department of Neurology (A.B.), State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated sex differences in verbal memory across different levels of neural dysfunction, measured by temporal lobe glucose metabolic rates (TLGluMR). METHODS: Three hundred ninety controls and 672 participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and 254 with Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative completed the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted using linear regression to examine the sex by TLGluMR interaction on RAVLT performance in the overall sample and within diagnostic groups adjusting for age, education, and APOE ε4 genotype. RESULTS: Across groups, female sex and higher TLGluMR and their interaction were associated with better verbal memory (p values ≤ 0.005). The female advantage in verbal memory varied by TLGluMR such that the advantage was greatest among individuals with moderate to high TLGluMR and minimal or absent among individuals with lower TLGluMR. Diagnosis-stratified analyses revealed that this interaction was driven by the aMCI group (p values = 0.009). The interaction was not significant in control and AD dementia groups. CONCLUSIONS: Women show better verbal memory than men in aMCI despite similar levels of brain hypometabolism. The lifelong advantage that females show over males in verbal memory might represent a form of cognitive reserve that delays verbal memory decline until more advanced pathology, as indexed by TLGluMR. This issue is clinically important because verbal memory scores are used in diagnosing aMCI and AD dementia.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated sex differences in verbal memory across different levels of neural dysfunction, measured by temporal lobe glucose metabolic rates (TLGluMR). METHODS: Three hundred ninety controls and 672 participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and 254 with Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative completed the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted using linear regression to examine the sex by TLGluMR interaction on RAVLT performance in the overall sample and within diagnostic groups adjusting for age, education, and APOE ε4 genotype. RESULTS: Across groups, female sex and higher TLGluMR and their interaction were associated with better verbal memory (p values ≤ 0.005). The female advantage in verbal memory varied by TLGluMR such that the advantage was greatest among individuals with moderate to high TLGluMR and minimal or absent among individuals with lower TLGluMR. Diagnosis-stratified analyses revealed that this interaction was driven by the aMCI group (p values = 0.009). The interaction was not significant in control and AD dementia groups. CONCLUSIONS: Women show better verbal memory than men in aMCI despite similar levels of brain hypometabolism. The lifelong advantage that females show over males in verbal memory might represent a form of cognitive reserve that delays verbal memory decline until more advanced pathology, as indexed by TLGluMR. This issue is clinically important because verbal memory scores are used in diagnosing aMCI and AD dementia.
Authors: M J de Leon; A Convit; O T Wolf; C Y Tarshish; S DeSanti; H Rusinek; W Tsui; E Kandil; A J Scherer; A Roche; A Imossi; E Thorn; M Bobinski; C Caraos; P Lesbre; D Schlyer; J Poirier; B Reisberg; J Fowler Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: K Herholz; E Salmon; D Perani; J C Baron; V Holthoff; L Frölich; P Schönknecht; K Ito; R Mielke; E Kalbe; G Zündorf; X Delbeuck; O Pelati; D Anchisi; F Fazio; N Kerrouche; B Desgranges; F Eustache; B Beuthien-Baumann; C Menzel; J Schröder; T Kato; Y Arahata; M Henze; W D Heiss Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Michael C Donohue; Anthony Gamst; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Sarah Walter; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Laurel A Beckett; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Arthur W Toga; Andrew J Saykin; John C Morris; Robert C Green; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: R O Roberts; Y E Geda; D S Knopman; R H Cha; V S Pankratz; B F Boeve; E G Tangalos; R J Ivnik; W A Rocca; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Robert M Chapman; Mark Mapstone; Margaret N Gardner; Tiffany C Sandoval; John W McCrary; Maria D Guillily; Lindsey A Reilly; Elizabeth DeGrush Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Annette L Fitzpatrick; Lewis H Kuller; Diane G Ives; Oscar L Lopez; William Jagust; John C S Breitner; Beverly Jones; Constantine Lyketsos; Corinne Dulberg Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Christian Habeck; Shannon Risacher; Grace J Lee; M Maria Glymour; Elizabeth Mormino; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Sungeun Kim; Kwangsik Nho; Charles DeCarli; Andrew J Saykin; Paul K Crane Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Owen A Williams; Yang An; Nicole M Armstrong; Andrea T Shafer; Jessica Helphrey; Melissa Kitner-Triolo; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan M Resnick Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Cutter A Lindbergh; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Adam M Staffaroni; Renaud La Joie; Leonardo Iaccarino; Lauren Edwards; Elena Tsoy; Fanny Elahi; Samantha M Walters; Devyn Cotter; Michelle You; Alexandra C Apple; Breton Asken; John Neuhaus; Jessica E Rexach; Kevin J Wojta; Gil Rabinovici; Joel H Kramer Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carlos Díaz-Venegas; Rafael Samper-Ternent; Alejandra Michaels-Obregón; Rebeca Wong Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2018-11-18 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Juyoun Lee; Hanna Cho; Seun Jeon; Hee Jin Kim; Yeo Jin Kim; Jeongmin Lee; Sung Tae Kim; Jong-Min Lee; Juhee Chin; Samuel N Lockhart; Ae Young Lee; Duk L Na; Sang Won Seo Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Rebecca L Koscik; Derek L Norton; Samantha L Allison; Erin M Jonaitis; Lindsay R Clark; Kimberly D Mueller; Bruce P Hermann; Corinne D Engelman; Carey E Gleason; Mark A Sager; Richard J Chappell; Sterling C Johnson Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Erin E Sundermann; Pauline Maki; Anat Biegon; Richard B Lipton; Michelle M Mielke; Mary Machulda; Mark W Bondi Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rebecca A Nebel; Neelum T Aggarwal; Lisa L Barnes; Aimee Gallagher; Jill M Goldstein; Kejal Kantarci; Monica P Mallampalli; Elizabeth C Mormino; Laura Scott; Wai Haung Yu; Pauline M Maki; Michelle M Mielke Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 21.566