SuperAgers" have previously been defined as adults 80 years and older with episodic memory ability at least as good as that of average middle-age adults. 1 They have a significantly thicker brain cortex than their same-age peers with average-for-age memory, 2 which is unusual as age-related cortical atrophy is considered "normal" and often associated with cognitive decline in nondemented older adults. 3 Super-Agers may experience similar atrophy rates as their cognitively average peers but start with larger brain volumes, or they may resist age-related cortical atrophy. To examine the latter possibility, we quantitated rates of cortical volume change over 18 months in SuperAgers and cognitively average elderly adults.Methods | The study took place at Northwestern University following institutional review board approval between April 2010 and May 2015. Written informed consent was obtained. Strict inclusion criteria for SuperAgers were previously detailed. 1 Briefly, participants, recruited through the community, were adults 80 years and older with intact daily functioning. SuperAgers scored at or above average normative values for adults aged 50 to 65 years on a test of episodic memory and at least average-for-age normative values on tests in other cognitive domains. Cognitively average-for-age elderly adults scored within the average-for-age normative range on all cognitive tests, including episodic memory.Participants were included if they had structural magnetic resonance imaging scans (3T MAGNETOM Trio, Siemens; using previously documented parameters 2 ) at 2 consecutive study visits approximately 18 months apart and had stable cognitive status across visits to minimize inclusion of individuals with emerging dementia. Whole-brain cortical volumes were obtained using the FreeSurfer, version 5.1.0, longitudinal pipeline, 4 reviewed primarily by 2 blinded technicians, manually corrected, and normalized to account for head circumference. Annual percent change (APC) in

No abstract

No abstract

There is a well-documented relationship between academic match and bachelor's degree completion; students who undermatch are less likely to complete a BA than those who match or overmatch, net of academic qualifications and demographic characteristics. Little is known, however, about whether this association has changed over time. I argue that recent trends in U.S. higher education may have altered this association. Thus, while prior research has documented gaps in outcomes between undermatched, matched, and overmatched students, it is important to understand how these gaps may be evolving. The present study uses nationally representative data from three cohorts of first-time college students-students who began college in 1995, 2003, and 2011-to examine this question. Findings show that, in some ways, the association between academic match and BA completion has remained stable over time; across all three cohorts, undermatched students are less likely to graduate than matched and overmatched students, after controlling for academic qualifications and demographic characteristics. In other ways, the association may be evolving; overall, overmatched students' odds of graduation have increased over time, while matched and undermatched students' have not. There are multiple possible explanations for this, including the fact that graduation rates in recent years have become increasingly stratified by college selectivity. The study concludes with recommendations for policy and practice, as well as suggestions for future research.

Background: Individuals at increased risk for cancer are ascertained at low rates of 1% to 12% in primary care (PC). Underserved populations experience disparities of ascertainment, but data are lacking. INHERET is an online personal and family history tool to facilitate the identification of individuals who are eligible, according to guidelines, to be counseled on germline genetic testing and risk management. Patients and Methods: INHERET data entry uses cancer genetics clinic questionnaires and algorithms that process patient data through NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and best practice guidelines. The tool was tested in silico on simulated and retrospective patients and prospectively in a pilot implementation trial. Patients in cancer genetics and in PC clinics were invited to participate via email or a card. Informed consent was completed online. Results: INHERET aimed to integrate patient data by algorithms based on professional and best practice guidelines to elicit succinct, actionable recommendations that providers can use without affecting clinic workflow or encounter length. INHERET requires a 4th-grade reading level, has simple navigation, and produces data lists and pedigree graphs. Prospective implementation testing revealed understandability of 90% to 100%, ease of use of 85%, and completion rates of 85% to 100%. Physicians using INHERET reported no added time to their encounters when patients were identified for counseling. In a specialty genetics clinic, INHERET’s data were input, on average, within 72 hours compared with 4 to 6 weeks through standard care, and the queue for scheduling patients decreased from 400 to fewer than 15 in <6 months. Conclusions: INHERET was found to be accessible for all education and age levels, except patients aged >70 years, who encountered more technical difficulties. INHERET aided providers in conveying high-risk status to patients and eliciting appropriate referrals, and, in a specialty clinic, it produced improved workflows and shortened queues.