Diana I Bocancea1, Anna C van Loenhoud1, Colin Groot1, Frederik Barkhof1, Wiesje M van der Flier1, Rik Ossenkoppele1. 1. From the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience (D.I.B., A.C.v.L., C.G., W.M.v.d.F., R.O.), and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B.), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands; Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering (F.B.), University College London, UK; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (W.M.v.d.F.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and Clinical Memory Research Unit (R.O.), Lund University, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus on how to optimally define and measure resistance and resilience in brain and cognitive aging. Residual methods use residuals from regression analysis to quantify the capacity to avoid (resistance) or cope (resilience) "better or worse than expected" given a certain level of risk or cerebral damage. We reviewed the rapidly growing literature on residual methods in the context of aging and Alzheimer disease (AD) and performed meta-analyses to investigate associations of residual method-based resilience and resistance measures with longitudinal cognitive and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science databases (consulted until March 2020) and subsequent screening led to 54 studies fulfilling eligibility criteria, including 10 studies suitable for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified articles using residual methods aimed at quantifying resistance (n = 33), cognitive resilience (n = 23), and brain resilience (n = 2). Critical examination of the literature revealed that there is considerable methodologic variability in how the residual measures were derived and validated. Despite methodologic differences across studies, meta-analytic assessments showed significant associations of levels of resistance (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] 1.12 [1.07-1.17]; p < 0.0001) and levels of resilience (HR [95% CI] 0.46 [0.32-0.68]; p < 0.001) with risk of progression to dementia/AD. Resilience was also associated with rate of cognitive decline (β [95% CI] 0.05 [0.01-0.08]; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: This review and meta-analysis supports the usefulness of residual methods as appropriate measures of resilience and resistance, as they capture clinically meaningful information in aging and AD. More rigorous methodologic standardization is needed to increase comparability across studies and, ultimately, application in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus on how to optimally define and measure resistance and resilience in brain and cognitive aging. Residual methods use residuals from regression analysis to quantify the capacity to avoid (resistance) or cope (resilience) "better or worse than expected" given a certain level of risk or cerebral damage. We reviewed the rapidly growing literature on residual methods in the context of aging and Alzheimer disease (AD) and performed meta-analyses to investigate associations of residual method-based resilience and resistance measures with longitudinal cognitive and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science databases (consulted until March 2020) and subsequent screening led to 54 studies fulfilling eligibility criteria, including 10 studies suitable for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified articles using residual methods aimed at quantifying resistance (n = 33), cognitive resilience (n = 23), and brain resilience (n = 2). Critical examination of the literature revealed that there is considerable methodologic variability in how the residual measures were derived and validated. Despite methodologic differences across studies, meta-analytic assessments showed significant associations of levels of resistance (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] 1.12 [1.07-1.17]; p < 0.0001) and levels of resilience (HR [95% CI] 0.46 [0.32-0.68]; p < 0.001) with risk of progression to dementia/AD. Resilience was also associated with rate of cognitive decline (β [95% CI] 0.05 [0.01-0.08]; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: This review and meta-analysis supports the usefulness of residual methods as appropriate measures of resilience and resistance, as they capture clinically meaningful information in aging and AD. More rigorous methodologic standardization is needed to increase comparability across studies and, ultimately, application in clinical practice.
Authors: Maria Ly; Gary Z Yu; Helmet T Karim; Nishita R Muppidi; Akiko Mizuno; William E Klunk; Howard J Aizenstein Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Laura B Zahodne; Jennifer J Manly; Adam M Brickman; Karen L Siedlecki; Charles Decarli; Yaakov Stern Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: James H Cole; Rudra P K Poudel; Dimosthenis Tsagkrasoulis; Matthan W A Caan; Claire Steves; Tim D Spector; Giovanni Montana Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M Habes; D Janowitz; G Erus; J B Toledo; S M Resnick; J Doshi; S Van der Auwera; K Wittfeld; K Hegenscheid; N Hosten; R Biffar; G Homuth; H Völzke; H J Grabe; W Hoffmann; C Davatzikos Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Sarah M Neuner; Maria Telpoukhovskaia; Vilas Menon; Kristen M S O'Connell; Timothy J Hohman; Catherine C Kaczorowski Journal: Trends Neurosci Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 16.978
Authors: Éimear M Foley; Yorghos Tripodis; Eukyung Yhang; Inga K Koerte; Brett M Martin; Joseph Palmisano; Nikos Makris; Vivian Schultz; Chris Lepage; Marc Muehlmann; Paweł P Wróbel; Jeffrey P Guenette; Robert C Cantu; Alexander P Lin; Michael Coleman; Jesse Mez; Sylvain Bouix; Martha E Shenton; Robert A Stern; Michael L Alosco Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: William S Kremen; Jeremy A Elman; Matthew S Panizzon; Graham M L Eglit; Mark Sanderson-Cimino; McKenna E Williams; Michael J Lyons; Carol E Franz Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 5.702
Authors: Jeremy A Elman; Jacob W Vogel; Diana I Bocancea; Rik Ossenkoppele; Anna C van Loenhoud; Xin M Tu; William S Kremen Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 8.823
Authors: Oskar Hansson; Rik Ossenkoppele; Anna Linnéa Svenningsson; Erik Stomrud; Sebastian Palmqvist Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 8.823