Measuring Resilience and Resistance in Aging and Alzheimer Disease Using Residual Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Neurology

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.

Published: September 2021

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]; < 0.0001) and levels of resilience (HR [95% CI] 0.46 [0.32-0.68]; < 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]; < 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448552PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012499DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

residual methods
20
resilience resistance
12
aging alzheimer
8
alzheimer disease
8
review meta-analysis
8
resilience
8
resilience brain
8
[95% ci]
8
resistance
7
residual
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!