ABSTRACT
The brain-age-gap estimate (brainAGE) quantifies the difference between chronological age and age predicted by applying machine-learning models to neuroimaging data and is considered a biomarker of brain health. Understanding sex differences in brainAGE is a significant step toward precision medicine. Global and local brainAGE (G-brainAGE and L-brainAGE, respectively) were computed by applying machine learning algorithms to brain structural magnetic resonance imaging data from 1113 healthy young adults (54.45% females; age range: 22-37 years) participating in the Human Connectome Project. Sex differences were determined in G-brainAGE and L-brainAGE. Random forest regression was used to determine sex-specific associations between G-brainAGE and non-imaging measures pertaining to sociodemographic characteristics and mental, physical, and cognitive functions. L-brainAGE showed sex-specific differences; in females, compared to males, L-brainAGE was higher in the cerebellum and brainstem and lower in the prefrontal cortex and insula. Although sex differences in G-brainAGE were minimal, associations between G-brainAGE and non-imaging measures differed between sexes with the exception of poor sleep quality, which was common to both. While univariate relationships were small, the most important predictor of higher G-brainAGE was self-identification as non-white in males and systolic blood pressure in females. The results demonstrate the value of applying sex-specific analyses and machine learning methods to advance our understanding of sex-related differences in factors that influence the rate of brain aging and provide a foundation for targeted interventions.
Subject(s)
Brain , Sex Characteristics , Adult , Aging/pathology , Biomarkers , Brain/diagnostic imaging , Brain/pathology , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Young AdultABSTRACT
We propose a new framework for estimating neuroimaging-derived "brain-age" at a local level within the brain, using deep learning. The local approach, contrary to existing global methods, provides spatial information on anatomical patterns of brain ageing. We trained a U-Net model using brain MRI scans from n = 3,463 healthy people (aged 18-90 years) to produce individualised 3D maps of brain-predicted age. When testing on n = 692 healthy people, we found a median (across participant) mean absolute error (within participant) of 9.5 years. Performance was more accurate (MAE around 7 years) in the prefrontal cortex and periventricular areas. We also introduce a new voxelwise method to reduce the age-bias when predicting local brain-age "gaps." To validate local brain-age predictions, we tested the model in people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia using data from OASIS3 (n = 267). Different local brain-age patterns were evident between healthy controls and people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, particularly in subcortical regions such as the accumbens, putamen, pallidum, hippocampus, and amygdala. Comparing groups based on mean local brain-age over regions-of-interest resulted in large effects sizes, with Cohen's d values >1.5, for example when comparing people with stable and progressive mild cognitive impairment. Our local brain-age framework has the potential to provide spatial information leading to a more mechanistic understanding of individual differences in patterns of brain ageing in health and disease.
ABSTRACT
Multiple biomarkers can capture different facets of Alzheimer's disease. However, statistical models of biomarkers to predict outcomes in Alzheimer's rarely model nonlinear interactions between these measures. Here, we used Gaussian Processes to address this, modelling nonlinear interactions to predict progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's over 3 years, using Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data. Measures included: demographics, APOE4 genotype, CSF (amyloid-ß42, total tau, phosphorylated tau), [18F ]florbetapir, hippocampal volume and brain-age. We examined: (a) the independent value of each biomarker; and (b) whether modelling nonlinear interactions between biomarkers improved predictions. Each measured added complementary information when predicting conversion to Alzheimer's. A linear model classifying stable from progressive MCI explained over half the variance (R2 = 0.51, p < .001); the strongest independently contributing biomarker was hippocampal volume (R2 = 0.13). When comparing sensitivity of different models to progressive MCI (independent biomarker models, additive models, nonlinear interaction models), we observed a significant improvement (p < .001) for various two-way interaction models. The best performing model included an interaction between amyloid-ß-PET and P-tau, while accounting for hippocampal volume (sensitivity = 0.77, AUC = 0.826). Closely related biomarkers contributed uniquely to predict conversion to Alzheimer's. Nonlinear biomarker interactions were also implicated, and results showed that although for some patients adding additional biomarkers may add little value (i.e., when hippocampal volume is high), for others (i.e., with low hippocampal volume) further invasive and expensive examination may be warranted. Our framework enables visualisation of these interactions, in individual patient biomarker 'space', providing information for personalised or stratified healthcare or clinical trial design.