| Literature DB >> 34975453 |
Heidi Foo1, Anbupalam Thalamuthu1, Jiyang Jiang1, Forrest Koch1, Karen A Mather1,2, Wei Wen1, Perminder S Sachdev1,3.
Abstract
Age and sex associated with changes in the functional brain network topology and cognition in large population of older adults have been poorly understood. We explored this question further by examining differences in 11 resting-state graph theory measures with respect to age, sex, and their relationships with cognitive performance in 17,127 United Kingdom Biobank participants (mean = 62.83 ± 7.41 years). Age was associated with an overall decrease in the effectiveness of network communication (i.e., integration) and loss of functional specialization (i.e., segregation) of specific brain regions. Sex differences were also observed, with women showing more efficient networks, which were less segregated than in men (FDR adjusted p < 0.05). The age-related changes were also more apparent in men than in women, which suggests that men may be more vulnerable to cognitive decline with age. Interestingly, while network segregation and strength of limbic network were only nominally associated with cognitive performance, the network measures collectively were significantly associated with cognition (FDR adjusted p ≤ 0.002). This may imply that individual measures may be inadequate to capture much of the variance in the neural activity or its output and need further refinement. The complexity of the organization of the functional brain may be shaped by the age and sex of an individual, which ultimately may influence the cognitive performance of older adults. Age and sex stratification may be used to inform clinical neuroscience research to identify older adults at risk of cognitive dysfunction.Entities:
Keywords: age; cognition; graph theory; resting-state fMRI; sex
Year: 2021 PMID: 34975453 PMCID: PMC8718995 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.758817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Graph theory measures and their association with age and age-related diseases.
| Graph theory measures | Definition | Associations with age and aging-related diseases |
| Global efficiency | How effectively the information is transmitted at a global level and is the average inverse shortest path length. Higher values imply greater efficiency. | Older age was associated with reduced global efficiency compared with that in younger participants ( |
| Characteristic path length | It is the average of all the distances between every pair of nodes in the network. It reflects the integrity of the network and how fast and easily information can flow within the network. A shorter characteristic path length reflects more efficient transmission of information. | Older age was associated with longer characteristic path lengths compared with those in younger participants ( |
| Louvain modularity | Community detection method, which iteratively transforms the network into a set of communities or modules, each consisting of a group of nodes. Higher modularity values indicate denser within-modular connections but sparser connections between nodes that are in different modules. | Brain networks in the elderly showed a decreased modularity (less distinct functional networks), but findings were mixed ( |
| Transitivity | Total of all the clustering coefficients around each node in the network and is normalized collectively. Higher values represent greater specialization of the brain. | Patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) showed lower normalized clustering coefficient (i.e., transitivity) ( |
| Strength | Sum of all neighboring edge weights. High connectivity strength indicates a stronger connectivity between the regions. | Age-related differences were observed in network-level functional connectivity such as increases in auditory network and decreases in connectivity in the visual, frontoparietal, dorsal attention, and salience network. However, findings were mixed ( |
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of brain network construction using Schaefer et al. (2018) parcellation to derive the weighted and undirected functional brain network graph. The figure is taken from Foo et al. (2021) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94182-9.
United Kingdom Biobank sample characteristics and descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) of graph theory measures and cognition measures in women and men.
| Women | Men | |||
| Age, years (range) | 62.21 ± 7.23(45−80) | 63.53 ± 7.55(45−80) | –11.660 | < 0.001 |
| Education, years | 15.44 ± 4.75 | 16.06 ± 4.70 | –8.540 | < 0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Eglob | 0.180 ± 1.010 | −0.205 ± 0.952 | 25.573 | < 0.001 |
| Charpath | −0.199 ± 1.009 | 0.234 ± 0.904 | –28.919 | < 0.001 |
| Louvain modularity | −0.086 ± 1.014 | 0.123 ± 0.964 | –13.758 | < 0.001 |
| Transitivity | 0.071 ± 0.989 | −0.089 ± 0.992 | 10.544 | < 0.001 |
| DMN | 0.191 ± 1.006 | −0.227 ± 0.942 | 28.021 | < 0.001 |
| DAN | 0.199 ± 1.005 | −0.230 ± 0.945 | 28.643 | < 0.001 |
| FPCN | 0.149 ± 1.019 | −0.176 ± 0.950 | 21.499 | < 0.001 |
| LIMB | 0.160 ± 0.991 | −0.203 ± 0.973 | 24.158 | < 0.001 |
| SVAN | 0.185 ± 1.010 | −0.225 ± 0.935 | 27.415 | < 0.001 |
| SM | 0.024 ± 1.026 | −0.037 ± 0.923 | 3.992 | < 0.001 |
| VIS | 0.194 ± 1.004 | −0.222 ± 0.943 | 27.807 | < 0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Memory | 0.01 ± 0.943 | 0.11 ± 1.002 | –4.604 | < 0.001 |
| Executive | 0.12 ± 0.928 | 0.13 ± 0.990 | –0.616 | 0.538 |
| Processing speed | 0.18 ± 0.945 | 0.14 ± 0.964 | 1.968 | 0.049 |
| Global cognition | 0.14 ± 0.917 | 0.16 ± 0.983 | –1.178 | 0.239 |
Analyses were conducted using independent samples t-test for continuous variables.
Graph theory measures and cognition are in z-scores, i.e., negative value represents poorer score, except for characteristic path length. Eglob, global efficiency; Charpath, characteristic path length; VIS, strength of visual network; SM, strength of somatomotor network; DAN, strength of dorsal attention network; SVAN, strength of salience network; LIMB, strength of limbic network; FPCN, strength of control network; DMN, strength of default network.
FIGURE 2Correlations between the graph theory measures. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001. Eglob, global efficiency; Charpath, characteristic path length; VIS, strength of visual network; SM, strength of somatomotor network; DAN, strength of dorsal attention network; SVAN, strength of salience network; LIMB, strength of limbic network; FPCN, strength of control network; DMN, strength of default network. The figure is taken from Foo et al. (2021) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94182-9.
FIGURE 3Age- and sex-related differences in the graph theory measures. Lines represent the fitted values for men (blue) and women (red) separately. The middle line shows the fitted equation evaluated at the mean value of education for each sex, while the top and lower lines represent confidence bands. The figure is taken from Foo et al. (2021) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94182-9.
Age- and sex-related differences in graph theory measures.
| Graph theory measures | β age | SE age | β sex | SE sex | β age × sex | SE age × sex | |||
| Eglob | –0.108 | 0.011 | –0.170 | 0.021 | –0.014 | 0.016 | 3.74E-21 | 1.29E-15 | 0.391 |
| Charpath | 0.043 | 0.011 | 0.226 | 0.021 | 0.034 | 0.016 | 1.67E-04 | 3.78E-26 | 0.068 |
| Louvain modularity | –0.181 | 0.011 | 0.166 | 0.021 | 0.046 | 0.016 | 1.05E-57 | 2.96E-15 | 0.016 |
| Transitivity | 0.072 | 0.011 | –0.042 | 0.021 | 0.024 | 0.016 | 4.55E-10 | 0.048 | 0.179 |
| DMN | 0.004 | 0.011 | –0.287 | 0.021 | –0.044 | 0.016 | 0.772 | 4.28E-41 | 0.016 |
| DAN | –0.055 | 0.011 | –0.181 | 0.021 | –0.006 | 0.016 | 1.71E-06 | 2.27E-17 | 0.681 |
| FPCN | –0.025 | 0.011 | –0.194 | 0.021 | –0.015 | 0.016 | 0.032 | 1.11E-19 | 0.391 |
| LIMB | 0.142 | 0.011 | –0.263 | 0.021 | –0.043 | 0.016 | 3.14E-36 | 3.04E-35 | 0.016 |
| SVAN | 0.000 | 0.011 | –0.223 | 0.021 | –0.026 | 0.016 | 0.971 | 2.29E-25 | 0.145 |
| SM | –0.093 | 0.011 | –0.090 | 0.021 | –0.031 | 0.016 | 5.86E-16 | 2.27E-05 | 0.093 |
| VIS | –0.071 | 0.011 | –0.106 | 0.021 | –0.076 | 0.016 | 5.12E-10 | 6.80E-07 | 1.21E-05 |
*Represents significance.
β, beta; SE, standard error, Padj, adjusted p-value; age × sex, age and sex interaction.
Multivariate analysis of the joint effect of the network measures with cognitive function.
| Cognitive domains | df | LR |
| |||
| Processing speed | 7 | 3.224 | 0.239 | 0.237 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Executive function | 9 | 3.503 | 0.132 | 0.128 | 0.004 | 5.29E-04 |
| Memory | 8 | 3.650 | 0.045 | 0.041 | 0.004 | 5.29E-04 |
| Global cognition | 3 | 4.480 | 0.188 | 0.184 | 0.004 | 7.75E-05 |
df, number of network measures in the model; LR, likelihood ratio, diff, difference; Padj, adjusted p-value.
Networks included in the final model:
Processing speed—age, age
Executive function—age, age
Memory—age, age
Global cognition—age, age
Full model includes network measures and base model includes only covariates.