Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Aging Pathways: Unraveling Geriatric Neuropsychology and Innovative Neuromodulatory Treatments in the New Millennium

Written By

Chiara Di Fazio and Sara Palermo

Submitted: 29 January 2024 Reviewed: 11 March 2024 Published: 03 April 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.114842

Advances in Geriatrics and Gerontology - Challenges of the New Millennium IntechOpen
Advances in Geriatrics and Gerontology - Challenges of the New Mi... Edited by Sara Palermo

From the Edited Volume

Advances in Geriatrics and Gerontology - Challenges of the New Millennium [Working Title]

Ph.D. Sara Palermo

Chapter metrics overview

11 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

As the global population ages, distinguishing between the effects of chronic diseases and inherent aging challenges becomes paramount. The intersection of geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology provides a comprehensive framework to navigate these complexities. We will explore the foundational aspects of geriatric neuropsychology, surveying prominent theories of brain aging, structural and functional changes, and the intricate relationship between aging and neurodegenerative diseases. Acknowledging the relevance of frailty as a critical marker, the chapter emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive geriatric evaluation to guide nuanced interventions. A pivotal focus is then directed toward non-invasive neuromodulatory treatments, particularly transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and its application in mitigating age-related cognitive decline. This exploration is contextualized within the broader framework of the medicine of complexity, recognizing the interconnectedness of various physiological and psychological factors in aging.

Keywords

  • ageotype
  • brain aging
  • comprehensive geriatric evaluation
  • neurogenesis
  • Hebbian plasticity
  • transcranial magnetic stimulation

1. Introduction

Aging, regardless of the specific age category it characterizes, should not be equated with a state of illness. Instead, it must be recognized as a natural phenomenon intricately linked with progressive physiological and psychological transformations in the organism. This aging process, marked by heightened biological vulnerability, can amplify the predisposition to various illnesses [1].

The process of aging is inherently diverse, with everyone undergoing a unique aging journey [2]. Aging is a gradual and continuous natural mutation involving the gradual decline of various bodily functions [2]. The life-span perspective recognizes functional changes as inherent to the human aging process, distinguishing between pure aging and its continuum toward pathological aging [3, 4].

Distinct aging patterns, or ageotypes, have been identified based on molecular pathway changes over time, including metabolic, immune, hepatic, and nephrotic ageotypes [5]. This molecular classification provides a personalized assessment of aging, reflects lifestyle and medical history, and offers insights into potential health risk factors.

Multimorbidity and polypharmacotherapy weaken the body, predisposing individuals to accelerated aging and frailty, which is considered the most challenging expression of aging [1, 2]. Frailty is an integrated and multidimensional condition where biological, functional, psychological, and social factors interact, posing risks for deteriorating mental health and cognitive decline [6, 7, 8, 9]. Cognitive frailty specifically refers to the co-occurrence of mild cognitive impairment and physical frailty without a major neurocognitive disorder diagnosis [10].

1.1 The imperative of distinguishing effects: Chronic diseases vs. aging challenges

The biological process of aging is characterized by a complex interplay of molecular, cellular, and systemic changes, encompassing alterations in genetic expression, cellular functions, and tissue integrity. These changes occur gradually over time, leading to a progressive transformation of both physiological and psychological dimensions. On a molecular level, aging involves intricate mechanisms such as telomere shortening, genomic instability, and mitochondrial dysfunction, contributing to cellular senescence and ultimately influencing the entire organism [11].

Crucially, it is imperative to emphasize that aging, in its essence, is not synonymous with a pathological state. Aging should be conceptualized as a dynamic, natural phenomenon that reflects the intricate orchestration of biological processes over the lifespan of an organism. The complexity arises from the fact that aging and chronic diseases, prevalent in the elderly population, share commonalities in their manifestations. This includes physiological declines, such as decreased organ function and immune system efficacy, which can be attributed to both aging and the development of chronic conditions [12, 13].

The challenge lies in discerning between age-related changes and those induced by specific chronic diseases, given their propensity to exhibit overlapping clinical characteristics. For instance, cognitive decline, a common feature of aging, can also manifest in neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. Distinguishing these nuances is crucial for accurate diagnosis and tailored interventions.

The field of geriatric neuropsychology plays a pivotal role in unraveling these complexities. It involves in-depth assessments of cognitive functions, neurobiological markers, and psychosocial factors to differentiate between age-related cognitive changes and pathological conditions [14]. Advanced imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), provide insights into the structural and functional alterations occurring in the aging brain, aiding in the identification of age-related patterns versus disease-related changes [15, 16].

1.2 The intersect of geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology

Geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology represent two interdisciplinary fields that converge to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities associated with aging. Gerontology, as a broader discipline, explores aging from a holistic perspective, considering the social, cultural, psychological, intellectual, and biological aspects of the aging process [17, 18, 19].

In the realm of gerontology, the focus extends beyond the individual to encompass the societal implications of an aging population. The interdisciplinary nature of gerontology integrates insights from sociology, anthropology, and public health to examine the impact of aging on communities, healthcare systems, and societal structures. This perspective is crucial for addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by an aging demographic on a global scale.

Geriatric neuropsychology, on the other hand, zooms in on the intricate relationship between aging and the brain. It investigates how the physiological changes associated with aging affect cognitive functions, emotional well-being, and overall mental health. This field employs a range of specialized assessments, including cognitive tests, neuroimaging, and psychosocial evaluations, to unravel the complexities of age-related changes in the brain [18].

The intersection of geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology is where these two disciplines harmonize, creating a synergistic approach to understanding the multifaceted aspects of aging. Geriatric neuropsychology contributes valuable insights into the cognitive and neurological dimensions of aging, shedding light on how changes in the brain impact an individual’s overall well-being.

For instance, in studying cognitive aging, geriatric neuropsychologists explore how age-related changes in brain structure and function may manifest in cognitive decline, memory impairment, or other neuropsychological conditions. This information is then integrated into the broader gerontological framework, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of how cognitive health influences an individual’s ability to engage with their social environment and maintain autonomy in daily activities.

The cooperation between geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology is vital in customizing interventions to meet the distinct requirements of the aging demographic. By amalgamating insights from these two fields, researchers and practitioners can formulate comprehensive approaches aimed at fostering cognitive health, emotional well-being, and the overall quality of life for older individuals. This convergence serves as a pivotal junction, propelling the progression of our understanding and elevating the standard of care.

Advertisement

2. Foundational aspects of geriatric neuropsychology

In delving into the intricate domain of geriatric neuropsychology, it becomes imperative to unravel the foundational aspects that underpin our understanding of the dynamic interplay between aging and the intricate workings of the human brain. This inquiry guides us toward the fundamental principles and theories that elucidate the intricate terrain where neurological processes intersect with the challenges presented by the process of advancing age.

2.1 Surveying prominent theories of “brain aging”

Brain aging encompasses a complex array of molecular and structural changes that collectively influence cognitive function and neurological well-being. Contemporary research has significantly advanced our comprehension of these intricacies, shedding light on tangible alterations observed in the aging brain [20, 21].

At its core, brain aging involves a gradual decline in cognitive abilities and neurological functions. Genetic predispositions and environmental factors intricately interact, shaping an individual’s susceptibility to age-related neurodegeneration. Molecular mechanisms such as telomere shortening, increased oxidative stress, and chronic neuroinflammation have emerged as pivotal contributors to cellular senescence and diminished neural plasticity, hallmarking the aging brain [22, 23].

Cutting-edge neuroimaging technologies have played a pivotal role in discerning the structural and functional modifications occurring in the aging brain. fMRI and PET have enabled the observation of connectivity patterns, alterations in synaptic integrity, and changes in regional brain activity. These tools provide tangible evidence of age-related neural degeneration, allowing researchers to correlate cognitive decline with specific anatomical and functional variations [24]. Concrete changes observed in brain aging include atrophy in certain brain regions, particularly the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, areas crucial for memory and executive functions [25, 26]. Additionally, altered patterns of neurotransmitter activity, diminished synaptic density, and the presence of beta-amyloid plaques are indicative of age-related cognitive decline, often associated with conditions like Alzheimer’s disease [27].

Our contemporary understanding of brain aging is marked by a detailed exploration of molecular processes, structural modifications, and observable changes in neural functioning. This nuanced approach not only refines our grasp of cognitive aging but also holds promise for developing targeted interventions to mitigate age-related cognitive decline and enhance the overall neurological health of the aging population. One of the key findings pertains to the concept of brain reserve, which refers to the brain’s inherent ability to withstand and compensate for age-related changes or pathological conditions without exhibiting noticeable cognitive decline [28, 29]. Another key concept is that of cognitive reserve, where individuals with enriched cognitive experiences exhibit greater resilience against age-related cognitive decline (see Table 1) [28, 30].

Table 1.

Key aspects of cognitive and brain reserve: Understanding the capacities and influences that contribute to maintaining optimal cognitive functioning and resilience, as well as the brain’s inherent ability to withstand age-related changes or pathological conditions, with associated contributing factors and outcomes.

Importantly, continuous intellectual engagement and cognitive stimulation throughout life contribute to enhanced neuroplasticity, acting as a protective factor against the impact of aging on cognitive functions.

2.2 Structural and functional changes in the aging brain

The aging process entails a nuanced interplay of structural and functional modifications within the brain, influencing its overall cognitive architecture. Delving into these changes provides a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies associated with aging-related cognitive variations.

2.2.1 Structural alterations

  • Gray matter decline: Aging is marked by a discernible reduction in gray matter volume, particularly pronounced in regions crucial for memory and cognitive functions. The hippocampus, integral to memory formation, and the prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive functions, are notably affected [31, 32]. These structural changes may contribute to the observed decline in specific cognitive abilities.

  • White matter integrity and connectivity: Concurrently, alterations in white matter integrity and connectivity patterns occur. The white matter, consisting of nerve fibers, experiences changes that impact the speed at which information is processed across different brain regions. Disruptions in white matter connectivity can influence the efficiency of communication between brain areas, affecting cognitive processing [33, 34].

2.2.2 Functional shifts

  • Neural activity dynamics: Functionally, the aging brain undergoes shifts in neural activity. Various studies report both increases and decreases in activity within different brain regions during different cognitive tasks. These fluctuations may reflect adaptive responses or compensatory mechanisms as the brain adjusts to aging-related changes [35, 36, 37].

  • Neurotransmitter decline: Accompanying these shifts is a decline in neurotransmitter activity, crucial for transmitting signals between neurons. Neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and acetylcholine play vital roles in cognitive functions such as attention, memory, and mood regulation. Their reduction can impact inter-neuronal communication and contribute to cognitive variability [21, 38, 39].

Understanding these intricate structural and functional changes is pivotal for developing targeted interventions aimed at preserving cognitive abilities in older individuals. Ongoing research endeavors strive to unravel the complexities of the aging brain, fostering innovative strategies to enhance cognitive well-being and quality of life in the elderly.

2.3 Intricate relationship between aging and neurodegenerative diseases

The intricate relationship between aging and neurodegenerative diseases unveils a complex interplay of biological processes that significantly impact the trajectory of cognitive health in older individuals. Aging itself is accompanied by structural and functional changes in the brain, as seen in the decline of gray matter volume and alterations in neural activity. Neurodegenerative diseases, on the other hand, represent a distinct category of disorders marked by the progressive degeneration of specific neural structures, leading to cognitive decline. While aging is a natural and universal process, the risk of neurodegenerative diseases increases with age. Conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases exemplify the convergence of aging-related changes and pathological processes, resulting in exacerbated cognitive impairment. Understanding this intricate relationship is crucial for developing comprehensive approaches to support cognitive well-being in the elderly and to differentiate age-related cognitive changes from those associated with neurodegenerative disorders, allowing for timely interventions and improved quality of life.

2.4 Brain reserve and cognitive reserve: Buffering cognitive decline

Brain reserve and cognitive reserve play crucial roles in mitigating cognitive decline as individuals age. Brain reserve, indicative of the brain’s inherent robustness, empowers it to endure age-related changes or pathological conditions without displaying noticeable cognitive impairment [28, 29]. Meanwhile, cognitive reserve involves the mind’s ability to sustain optimal cognitive functioning by actively participating in intellectually stimulating activities and diverse cognitive experiences throughout one’s life [28, 30]. These reserves act as protective mechanisms, allowing individuals to effectively manage and compensate for the cognitive effects of aging. Engaging in continuous learning, pursuing intellectually challenging tasks, and maintaining social and cognitive activities contribute significantly to the fortification of cognitive reserve. A comprehensive understanding of the functions of the brain and cognitive reserve provides valuable insights for developing strategies aimed at promoting cognitive health, delaying cognitive decline, and ultimately enhancing the overall quality of life for aging individuals.

Imagine an individual who, throughout their life, consistently engaged in mentally challenging activities, pursued diverse learning experiences, and maintained a socially active lifestyle. This person, with a well-developed cognitive reserve, possesses a greater capacity to navigate the challenges of aging without experiencing a pronounced decline in cognitive functions. The brain reserve, acting as a robust shield, enables this individual to withstand age-related structural and functional changes without significant cognitive impairment. This example underscores the practical implications of actively fostering brain and cognitive reserve. By incorporating intellectually stimulating activities into their daily lives, individuals can potentially delay the onset of cognitive decline and sustain a higher level of cognitive functioning in later years. The buffering effect provided by these reserves offers a tangible pathway toward promoting cognitive health and enhancing the overall well-being of aging individuals.

Advertisement

3. Relevance of frailty as a critical marker

Frailty stands as a pivotal marker in the aging process, representing a state of heightened vulnerability to negative health outcomes due to a reduction in functional reserves across multiple organ systems [40, 41, 42]. Its significance extends beyond physical aspects, influencing various dimensions of an individual’s well-being, including cognitive health.

Frailty is not merely a consequence of aging but rather a comprehensive reflection of an individual’s physiological and psychological state. It encapsulates the dynamic interplay between biological, cognitive, and socio-economic factors, making it a valuable marker for assessing the overall health status of an aging individual [43, 44]. Understanding frailty provides insights into the complexities of the aging process, allowing for targeted interventions that address the multifaceted needs of older adults.

Frailty, as a critical marker in the aging process, plays a substantial role in influencing cognitive decline, with scientific evidence highlighting its intricate association with neurocognitive outcomes. Numerous studies have demonstrated a clear link between frailty and an increased risk of cognitive impairment and neurocognitive disorders in the elderly [45, 46].

Research by Robertson and colleagues [47] found that frail individuals exhibit a higher likelihood of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared to their non-frail counterparts. The study, spanning a longitudinal analysis of aging cohorts, revealed that the presence of frailty significantly accelerated the progression from MCI to more severe cognitive impairments, such as Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.

Moreover, a comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by Panza et al. [48] emphasized the role of frailty as a predictor of an incident major neurocognitive disorder. The review encompassed diverse population-based studies, consistently establishing frailty as an independent risk factor for the onset of major neurocognitive disorders. The mechanisms underlying this association involve a complex interplay of vascular, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative processes, amplifying the impact of frailty on cognitive trajectories [48].

Understanding the intricate relationship between frailty and cognitive decline not only provides valuable prognostic insights but also opens avenues for targeted interventions. Interventions aimed at mitigating frailty, such as personalized exercise programs and nutritional interventions, have shown promise in preserving cognitive function and slowing down the progression of cognitive decline in frail individuals [49, 50]. In addition, today’s developments pave the way for non-invasive neuromodulatory treatments capable of enhancing brain reserve or mitigating potential pathological outcomes through neuromodulation interventions. Recognizing frailty as a crucial determinant of cognitive health underscores the importance of comprehensive geriatric assessments and interventions to enhance the overall well-being of older adults.

Advertisement

4. Comprehensive geriatric evaluation: guiding nuanced interventions

Comprehensive geriatric evaluation stands as a cornerstone in tailoring nuanced interventions for the aging population, addressing the multifaceted aspects of health in older individuals. The significance of comprehensive geriatric evaluation lies in its ability to provide a thorough understanding of an elderly individual’s health status, encompassing physical, cognitive, and socio-economic dimensions [51, 52]. This holistic assessment involves a multidisciplinary approach, integrating medical, psychological, and functional evaluations [53]. Components may include detailed medical histories, functional assessments, cognitive screenings, and social support evaluations, ensuring a comprehensive grasp of an individual’s unique needs [54].

Within the framework of evaluation, addressing frailty emerges as a crucial component. Identifying frailty allows for targeted interventions that consider an individual’s vulnerability and tailor care plans accordingly. Frailty assessments often involve evaluating physical strength, mobility, nutrition, and psychosocial factors, providing a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s overall health and potential areas of intervention. This comprehensive evaluation not only informs personalized care plans but also sets the stage for exploring innovative interventions, including non-invasive neuromodulatory treatments.

The subsequent paragraph will delve into the promising realm of non-invasive neuromodulation as a potential avenue for enhancing cognitive well-being within the geriatric population.

Advertisement

5. Non-invasive neuromodulatory treatments

Non-invasive neuromodulation is an advanced field that targets brain activity to induce changes in behavioral or motor-sensory functions without necessitating invasive procedures [54]. This methodology encompasses various techniques, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or alternating current stimulation (tACS), characterized by small, painless electrical discharges, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which employs electromagnetic waves. The primary distinction among these methodologies lies in the equipment used and the depth of action. tDCS involves the application of low-level, constant electrical current to the brain via electrodes placed on the scalp, which is known for its painless nature and its ability to modulate neuronal activity, making it a promising tool for various applications in cognitive enhancement, motor rehabilitation, and psychiatric disorders [55], while tACS delivers rhythmic electrical stimulation to the brain at specific frequencies. This method has shown potential in modulating neural oscillations and has been investigated for its role in enhancing cognitive functions, such as memory and attention, as well as for its therapeutic potential in neurological and psychiatric conditions [56]. TMS, on the contrary, is a non-invasive stimulation technique that employs electromagnetic waves to stimulate specific brain regions [57].

Indeed, all these methodologies derive their proven efficacy from the concept of neuroplasticity. According to this hypothesis, numerous nervous system disorders stem from an imbalance between stressors (which target specific structures based on individual vulnerability rooted in genetic predisposition) and neuroplasticity factors (the central nervous system’s ability to generate new cells and connections) [58]. Physical, magnetic, light, and electrostatic stimuli function by activating the structures involved in neurogenesis [59, 60]. The stimulation those techniques provide is aligned with the principles of Hebbian plasticity, where repeated activation of neuronal pathways strengthens synaptic connections [58]. This phenomenon, known as Hebbian learning, underscores the adaptability of the nervous system in response to stimuli [61]. Consequently, the application of neuromodulation techniques harnesses the principles of Hebbian plasticity to promote neurogenesis, aiming to counteract the detrimental effects of stressors and foster a resilient nervous system [62].

5.1 Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): mitigating age-related cognitive decline

TMS emerges as a leading non-invasive neuromodulatory technique, demonstrating efficacy in modulating neural activity and potentially ameliorating cognitive decline associated with aging [63, 64]. TMS is a non-invasive neuromodulatory technique that involves the application of rapidly changing magnetic fields to specific brain regions. This process induces electrical currents in the targeted areas of the brain, leading to the depolarization or hyperpolarization of neurons. By modulating neuronal activity, TMS has been shown to promote neuroplasticity [57] and influence neuronal connectivity. Research suggests its potential to enhance cognitive functions, making it a compelling intervention in the quest to preserve cognitive health in older individuals [63]. Exploring case studies and empirical evidence further bolsters the case for TMS in geriatric neuropsychology. Investigations into the application of TMS to older adults reveal promising outcomes, including improvements in memory, attention, and executive functions. The non-invasiveness of TMS, coupled with its relatively low side effect profile, enhances its appeal as a viable option for age-related cognitive challenges. Unlike invasive procedures, TMS does not require surgery or anesthesia, and it is generally well-tolerated by individuals. This makes it an attractive option for older adults, who may be more vulnerable to the risks associated with invasive interventions. As non-invasive neuromodulation continues to advance, TMS stands out as a beacon of hope in the endeavor to tailor interventions that promote cognitive health, independence, and an enriched quality of life for the elderly. The exploration of TMS efficacy in geriatric neuropsychology underscores the evolving landscape of innovative treatments dedicated to addressing the unique needs of an aging population, offering new possibilities for enhancing cognitive function and overall well-being in older individuals.

Advertisement

6. Conclusions

Aging unfolds as a complex interplay of physiological changes, rendering the elderly more susceptible to various health challenges. Thus, within the realm of geriatric neuropsychology, the need to discern between the distinct trajectories of aging and chronic diseases becomes paramount. This imperative recognition lays the foundation for developing targeted interventions, acknowledging the nuanced intricacies of the aging process, and enabling a more personalized and effective approach to geriatric care. The synergistic collaboration between geriatric neuropsychology and gerontology emerges as a fundamental reference point for shaping interventions tailored to the unique needs of the aging population. By integrating perspectives from both disciplines, researchers and practitioners can develop holistic strategies that not only promote cognitive health, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life for older individuals but also leverage innovative approaches such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and Hebbian plasticity. This union represents a crucial nexus, catalyzing the advancement of our knowledge and enhancing the care and support provided to the elderly in the continually evolving landscape of the twenty-first century.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

No funding was available to the authors.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the manuscript was written in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Morese R, Palermo S, Defedele M, Nervo J, Borraccino A. Vulnerability and social exclusion: Risk in adolescence and old age. In: Morese R, Palermo S, editors. The New Forms of Social Exclusion. London: IntechOpen Limited; 2019. pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.85463
  2. 2. Palermo S. Covid-19 Pandemic: Maximizing future vaccination treatments considering aging and frailty. Frontiers in Medicine. 2020;7:558835. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.558835
  3. 3. Smith GE, Bondi MW. Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Definitions, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Oxford: OUP USA; 2013. 416 p. ISBN: 0199764182
  4. 4. Wise DA. Analyses in the Economics of Aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. 416 p. ISBN: 0-226-90286-2
  5. 5. Ahadi S, Zhou W, Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose SM, et al. Personal aging markers and ageotypes revealed by deep longitudinal profiling. Nature Medicine. 2020;26(1):83-90. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0719-5
  6. 6. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. In search of an integral conceptual definition of frailty: Opinions of experts. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2010;11(5):338-343. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.09.015
  7. 7. Sourial N, Wolfson C, Bergman H, et al. A correspondence analysis revealed frailty deficits aggregate and are multidimensional. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(6):647-654. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.007
  8. 8. Ní Mhaoláin AM, Fan CW, Romero-Ortuno R, et al. Frailty, depression, and anxiety in later life. International Psychogeriatrics. 2012;24(8):1265-1274. DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211002110
  9. 9. Nishiguchi S, Yamada M, Fukutani N, et al. Differential association of frailty with cognitive decline and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2015;16(2):120-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.07.010
  10. 10. Kelaiditi E, Cesari M, Canevelli M, et al. Cognitive frailty: Rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) international consensus group. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging. 2013;17(9):726-734. DOI: 10.1007/s12603-013-0367-2
  11. 11. da Costa JP, Vitorino R, Silva GM, Vogel C, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. A synopsis on aging-theories, mechanisms and future prospects. Ageing Research Reviews. 2016;29:90-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.06.005
  12. 12. Gilbert SF. Developmental biology. In: Aging: The Biology of Senescence. 6th ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2000. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10041/
  13. 13. Voropai D, Kroeskop A. Catching the aging curve early. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2023;22(Suppl. 1):28-31. DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15701
  14. 14. Lu PH, Lee GJ. The role of neuropsychology in the assessment of the cognitively impaired elderly. Neurologic Clinics. 2017;35(2):191-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ncl.2017.01.002
  15. 15. Cole JH. Multimodality neuroimaging brain-age in UK biobank: Relationship to biomedical, lifestyle, and cognitive factors. Neurobiology of Aging. 2020;92:34-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2020.03.014
  16. 16. Bethlehem RAI, Seidlitz J, White SR, et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan [published correction appears in nature. 2022 Oct;610(7931):E6]. Nature. 2022;604(7906):525-533. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y
  17. 17. Schneider EL. The aging of the aged: Challenges for gerontology & geriatrics in the United States. Nihon Ronen Igakkai zasshi. Japanese journal of Geriatrics. 1992;29(4):245-247. DOI: 10.3143/geriatrics.29.245
  18. 18. Smith AM. Geriatric neuropsychology: Assessment and intervention edited by Deborah K. Attix Kathleen A. Welsh-Bohmer. Educational Gerontology. 2007;34(1):101-102. DOI: 10.1080/03601270701764058
  19. 19. Martin TA, Bush SS. Ethical considerations in geriatric neuropsychology. NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;23(5):447-454
  20. 20. Peters R. Ageing and the brain. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2006;82(964):84-88. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2005.036665
  21. 21. Lee J, Kim HJ. Normal aging induces changes in the brain and neurodegeneration progress: Review of the structural, biochemical, metabolic, cellular, and molecular changes. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2022;14:931536. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.931536
  22. 22. Wyss-Coray T. Ageing, neurodegeneration and brain rejuvenation. Nature. 2016;539(7628):180-186. DOI: 10.1038/nature20411
  23. 23. Azam S, Haque ME, Balakrishnan R, Kim IS, Choi DK. The ageing brain: Molecular and cellular basis of neurodegeneration. Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology. 2021;9:683459. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.683459
  24. 24. Bigos KL, Hariri AR. Neuroimaging: Technologies at the interface of genes, brain, and behavior. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 2007;17(4):459-467, viii. DOI: 10.1016/j.nic.2007.09.005
  25. 25. Jellinger KA, Attems J. Neuropathological approaches to cerebral aging and neuroplasticity. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 2013;15(1):29-43. DOI: 10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.1/kjellinger
  26. 26. Toepper M. Dissociating normal aging from Alzheimer's disease: A view from cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2017;57(2):331-352. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161099
  27. 27. DeTure MA, Dickson DW. The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Molecular Neurodegeneration. 2019;14(1):32. DOI: 10.1186/s13024-019-0333-5
  28. 28. Stern Y, Barnes CA, Grady C, Jones RN, Raz N. Brain reserve, cognitive reserve, compensation, and maintenance: Operationalization, validity, and mechanisms of cognitive resilience. Neurobiology of Aging. 2019;83:124-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.03.022
  29. 29. Hachinski V, Avan A. A new definition of brain reserve. Alzheimer's & Dementia. 2022;18(3):535-537. DOI: 10.1002/alz.12562
  30. 30. Stern Y. Cognitive reserve in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurology. 2012;11(11):1006-1012. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70191-6
  31. 31. Terribilli D, Schaufelberger MS, Duran FL, et al. Age-related gray matter volume changes in the brain during non-elderly adulthood. Neurobiology of Aging. 2011;32(2):354-368. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.02.008
  32. 32. Morrison JH, Baxter MG. The ageing cortical synapse: Hallmarks and implications for cognitive decline. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2012;13(4):240-250. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3200
  33. 33. Samson RD, Barnes CA. Impact of aging brain circuits on cognition. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;37(12):1903-1915. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12183
  34. 34. Yang AC, Tsai SJ, Liu ME, Huang CC, Lin CP. The association of aging with white matter integrity and functional connectivity hubs. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2016;8:143. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00143
  35. 35. Andrews-Hanna JR, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Lustig C, Head D, Raichle ME, et al. Disruption of large-scale brain systems in advanced aging. Neuron. 2007;56(5):924-935. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.038
  36. 36. McDonough IM, Nolin SA, Visscher KM. 25 years of neurocognitive aging theories: What have we learned? Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2022;14:1002096. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.1002096
  37. 37. Dimitriadis SI, Castells-Sánchez A, Roig-Coll F, et al. Intrinsic functional brain connectivity changes following aerobic exercise, computerized cognitive training, and their combination in physically inactive healthy late-middle-aged adults: The Projecte Moviment. Geroscience. 2024;46(1):573-596. DOI: 10.1007/s11357-023-00946-8
  38. 38. Teleanu RI, Niculescu AG, Roza E, Vladâcenco O, Grumezescu AM, Teleanu DM. Neurotransmitters-key factors in neurological and neurodegenerative disorders of the central nervous system. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23(11):5954. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23115954
  39. 39. Chen Y, Xu J, Chen Y. Regulation of neurotransmitters by the gut microbiota and effects on cognition in neurological disorders. Nutrients. 2021;13(6):2099. DOI: 10.3390/nu13062099 [Accessed: Jun 19, 2021]
  40. 40. Xue QL. The frailty syndrome: Definition and natural history. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine. 2011;27(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2010.08.009
  41. 41. Clegg A, Young J. The frailty syndrome. Clinical Medicine (London, England). 2011;11(1):72-75. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.11-1-72
  42. 42. Lozupone M, Solfrizzi V, Sardone R, et al. The epigenetics of frailty. Epigenomics. 2024;16(3):189-202. DOI: 10.2217/epi-2023-0279
  43. 43. Pinheiro IM, de Aguiar DS, Dos Santos DM, de Jesus MBDC, da Silva FM, Costa DF, et al. Biopsychosocial factors associated with the frailty and pre-frailty among older adults. Geriatric Nursing. 2019;40(6):597-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2019.06.002
  44. 44. Polidori MC, Ferrucci L. Frailty from conceptualization to action: The biopsychosocial model of frailty and resilience. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. 2023;35(4):725-727. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02337-z
  45. 45. Borges MK, Canevelli M, Cesari M, Aprahamian I. Frailty as a predictor of cognitive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne). 2019;6:26. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00026
  46. 46. Li C, Ge S, Yin Y, Tian C, Mei Y, Han P. Frailty is associated with worse cognitive functioning in older adults. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2023;14:1108902. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1108902
  47. 47. Robertson DA, Savva GM, Kenny RA. Frailty and cognitive impairment–A review of the evidence and causal mechanisms. Ageing Research Reviews. 2013;12(4):840-851. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2013.06.004
  48. 48. Panza F, Lozupone M, Solfrizzi V, Sardone R, Dibello V, Di Lena L, et al. Different cognitive frailty models and health- and cognitive-related outcomes in older age: From epidemiology to prevention. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2018;62(3):993-1012. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170963
  49. 49. Kojima G, Iliffe S, Jivraj S, Walters K. Association between frailty and quality of life among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2016;70(7):716-721. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2015-206717
  50. 50. Soll-Morka A, Kurpas D. The degree of meeting the needs of older people with frailty syndrome in the residential environment in relation to interventions-experimental study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(18):11682. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811682
  51. 51. Devons CA. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: Making the most of the aging years. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2002;5(1):19-24. DOI: 10.1097/00075197-200201000-00004
  52. 52. Naughton C, Galvin R, McCullagh R, Horgan F. Comprehensive geriatric assessment-where are we now, where do we need to be in the context of global ageing? Age and Ageing. 2023;52(11):afad210. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afad210
  53. 53. Arakelyan S, Lone N, Anand A, et al. Effectiveness of holistic assessment-based interventions in improving outcomes in adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty: An umbrella review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2023;21(9):1863-1878. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00406
  54. 54. Veniero D, Strüber D, Thut G, Herrmann CS. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques can modulate cognitive processing. Organizational Research Methods. 2019;22(1):116-147. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116658960
  55. 55. Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, Boggio PS, Brunoni AR, Celnik P, et al. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2016;127:1031-1048
  56. 56. Klink K, Paßmann S, Kasten FH, Peter J. The modulation of cognitive performance with transcranial alternating current stimulation: A systematic review of frequency-specific effects. Brain Sciences. 2020;10(12):932. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci10120932
  57. 57. Lefaucheur JP, André-Obadia N, Antal A, Ayache SS, Baeken C, Benninger DH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clinical Neurophysiology. 2014;125(11):2150-2206
  58. 58. Mateos-Aparicio P, Rodríguez-Moreno A. The impact of studying brain plasticity. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2019;13:66. DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00066
  59. 59. Cope EC, Gould E. Adult neurogenesis, glia, and the extracellular matrix. Cell Stem Cell. 2019;24(5):690-705. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.03.023
  60. 60. Cameron HA, Glover LR. Adult neurogenesis: Beyond learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology. 2015;66:53-81. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015006
  61. 61. Andersen N, Krauth N, Nabavi S. Hebbian plasticity in vivo: Relevance and induction. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2017;45:188-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2017.06.001
  62. 62. Culig L, Chu X, Bohr VA. Neurogenesis in aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Ageing Research Reviews. 2022;78:101636. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101636
  63. 63. Tatti E, Rossi S, Innocenti I, Rossi A, Santarnecchi E. Non-invasive brain stimulation of the aging brain: State of the art and future perspectives. Ageing Research Reviews. 2016;29:66-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.05.006
  64. 64. Goldthorpe RA, Rapley JM, Violante IR. A systematic review of non-invasive brain stimulation applications to memory in healthy aging. Frontiers in Neurology. 2020;11:575075. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.575075

Written By

Chiara Di Fazio and Sara Palermo

Submitted: 29 January 2024 Reviewed: 11 March 2024 Published: 03 April 2024