Multimodal predictors of cross‐sectional and longitudinal memory in a cognitively unimpaired aging cohort

Abstract Background Episodic memory function in aging varies considerably both across individuals and within individuals over time. Identifying factors that explain variance in memory is important for improving prediction of risk for cognitive decline in older adults. Here we examine associations of structural, functional, and molecular factors with cross‐sectional and longitudinal memory function in a normal aging cohort. Method Participants were enrolled in the Stanford Aging and Memory Study (SAMS; N = 212; mean age: 69.5 ± 5.8 years, 57% female) and cognitively unimpaired at baseline. As part of an ongoing longitudinal extension of SAMS, a subset of participants ( N = 79) have returned for longitudinal cognitive assessment (mean follow‐up: 7.08 ± 1.14 years). Memory was assessed using a composite score comprised of delayed recall subtests from Logical Memory, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test and the Brief Visual Memory Test. Baseline predictors of interest included Lumipulse CSF pTau181, hippocampus volume from manually segmented T2‐structural MRI, and fMRI measures of neural selectivity and cortical reinstatement measured during associative memory encoding and retrieval, respectively. Linear models and linear mixed effects models examined cross‐sectional and longitudinal associations, respectively, between predictors of interest and memory performance. All models included age, sex, and education as covariates. Result All baseline predictors exhibited significant associations with age ( p < .005). Among baseline predictors, associations were observed between reinstatement and neural selectivity (β = 0.37, p < .001) and between reinstatement and CSF pTau181 (β = ‐0.20, p < .05). Cross‐sectional effects with the memory composite were observed across both functional measures (neural selectivity: β = 0.20, p < .01; reinstatement: β = 0.20, p < .001). Associations with CSF pTau ( p < .001) and hippocampus volume ( p < .01) were observed when examining longitudinal change in memory over time. A trend level association between neural selectivity and longitudinal memory performance was also present ( p = .07). Conclusion Functional, structural, and molecular markers relevant for aging and Alzheimer's disease independently impact memory performance in human aging. Combining these measures may improve the prediction of clinically meaningful decline and elucidate factors that promote cognitive maintenance in older age.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70856_106059
Primary Topic
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Multimodal predictors of cross‐sectional and longitudinal memory in a cognitively unimpaired aging cohort

America Romero, Jintao Sheng, Isha Sai, Gayle K. Deutsch et al.
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
article

Multimodal predictors of cross‐sectional and longitudinal memory in a cognitively unimpaired aging cohort

America Romero, Jintao Sheng, Isha Sai, Gayle K. Deutsch, Alexandra N. Trelle, Ted N. Wilson, Elizabeth C. Mormino, Lucah Medina Guerra, Anthony D. Wagner, Tammy T. Tran, Jennifer Park
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Episodic memory function in aging varies considerably both across individuals and within individuals over time. Identifying factors that explain variance in memory is important for improving prediction of risk for cognitive decline in older adults. Here we examine associations of structural, functional, and molecular factors with cross‐sectional and longitudinal memory function in a normal aging cohort. Method Participants were enrolled in the Stanford Aging and Memory Study (SAMS; N = 212; mean age: 69.5 ± 5.8 years, 57% female) and cognitively unimpaired at baseline. As part of an ongoing longitudinal extension of SAMS, a subset of participants ( N = 79) have returned for longitudinal cognitive assessment (mean follow‐up: 7.08 ± 1.14 years). Memory was assessed using a composite score comprised of delayed recall subtests from Logical Memory, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test and the Brief Visual Memory Test. Baseline predictors of interest included Lumipulse CSF pTau181, hippocampus volume from manually segmented T2‐structural MRI, and fMRI measures of neural selectivity and cortical reinstatement measured during associative memory encoding and retrieval, respectively. Linear models and linear mixed effects models examined cross‐sectional and longitudinal associations, respectively, between predictors of interest and memory performance. All models included age, sex, and education as covariates. Result All baseline predictors exhibited significant associations with age ( p < .005). Among baseline predictors, associations were observed between reinstatement and neural selectivity (β = 0.37, p < .001) and between reinstatement and CSF pTau181 (β = ‐0.20, p < .05). Cross‐sectional effects with the memory composite were observed across both functional measures (neural selectivity: β = 0.20, p < .01; reinstatement: β = 0.20, p < .001). Associations with CSF pTau ( p < .001) and hippocampus volume ( p < .01) were observed when examining longitudinal change in memory over time. A trend level association between neural selectivity and longitudinal memory performance was also present ( p = .07). Conclusion Functional, structural, and molecular markers relevant for aging and Alzheimer's disease independently impact memory performance in human aging. Combining these measures may improve the prediction of clinically meaningful decline and elucidate factors that promote cognitive maintenance in older age.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 21(S2)
University of Oregon (US), Neurosciences Institute (US), Stanford University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.