| Literature DB >> 28438167 |
Yongming Li1,2,3, Yuchuan Liu4, Pin Wang4, Jie Wang4, Sha Xu4, Mingguo Qiu5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Traditional brain age estimation methods are based on the idea that uses the real age as the training label. However, these methods ignore that there is a deviation between the real age and the brain age due to the accelerated brain aging.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Brain age estimation; Brain pathological age; Classification; Correlation criterion; Magnetic resonance imaging; Support vector regression
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28438167 PMCID: PMC5404315 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-017-0342-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Basic information about the hippocampus dataset
| Class | Number | Age range (years) | Mean age (years) | Age standard deviation | Men/women |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 411 | 65–85 | 76.092 | 4.696 | 185/226 |
| MCI | 411 | 65–85 | 75.362 | 7.635 | 234/177 |
| AD | 411 | 65–85 | 75.503 | 7.245 | 198/223 |
Fig. 1Flowchart of Path_brainAge_estima
Results about age detection with different kernel functions for NC-AD
| Experiment methods | Polynomial kernel | Gaussian kernel | Linear kernel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Without age detection | (0, 0) | (0, 0) | (0, 0) |
| Path_brainAge_estima (w, q) | (−2.5, 4.1) | (−5.3, 3) | (−5.1, 7) |
| Significant difference (P value) | (0.255, 0.0285) | (0.0262, 0.0714) | (0.0211, 0.0005) |
Comparison of brain age with different kernel functions for NC-AD (correlation coefficient)
| Polynomial kernel | Gaussian kernel | Linear kernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std | Mean | Std | Mean | Std | |
| Without age estimation (w = 0, q = 0) | 0.059 | 0.0363 | 0.0592 | 0.0363 | 0.0592 | 0.0363 |
| BrainAge_estima | 0.558 | 0.0179 | 0.6746 | 0.0230 | 0.518 | 0.2354 |
| Path_brainAge_estima | 0.625 | 0.0181 | 0.6785 | 0.0243 | 0.682 | 0.0235 |
Results for age detection
| Experiment methods | NC-AD ( | NC-MCI ( | MCI-AD ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Without age estimation | (0, 0) | (0, 0) | (0, 0) |
| Path_brainAge_estima | ( −5.1, 7) | ( −3.9, 0.7) | (−2.2, 2.4) |
| Significant difference (P value) | (0.0211, <0.001) | (0.0797, 0.7797) | (0.2645, 0.21) |
Results for age detection
| Methods | NC-MCI-AD ( |
|---|---|
| Without age estimation | (0, 0, 0) |
| Path_brainAge_estima | (−4, − 0.7, 2.7) |
| Significant difference (P value) | (0.0119, 0.6188, 0.1535) |
Fig. 2Averages values of in the two-class problem. is the deviation between the real age and the brain pathological age of the class 1 samples. is the deviation between the real age and the brain pathological age of the class 2 samples
Fig. 3Averages of and in the three-class problem. is the deviation between the real age and the brain pathological age of the class 1 samples. is the deviation between the real age and the brain pathological age of the class 2 samples. is the deviation between the real age and the brain pathological age of the class 3 samples
Comparison of brain age for two types of sample (correlation coefficient)
| NC-AD | NC-MCI | MCI-AD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std | Mean | Std | Mean | Std | |
| Without age estimation (w = 0, q = 0) | 0.059 | 0.0363 | 0.071 | 0.0412 | 0.035 | 0.0257 |
| BrainAge_estima | 0.518 | 0.2354 | 0.3744 | 0.1909 | 0.29 | 0.0681 |
| Path_brainAge_estima | 0.682 | 0.0235 | 0.5028 | 0.0403 | 0.3106 | 0.0569 |
Comparison of brain age for the three classes of sample (correlation coefficient)
| NC-MCI-AD | ||
|---|---|---|
| Different methods | Fitness value | |
| Mean | Std | |
| Without age estimation (w = 0, q = 0, r = 0) | 0.0449 | 0.0277 |
| BrainAge_estima | 0.3973 | 0.1822 |
| Path_brainAge_estima | 0.5975 | 0.0232 |
Fig. 4Correlation of test samples based on estimated brain age by different methods. (1) two class; (2) three class
Correaltion of brain age with class label and MR features
| Correlation | Without age estimation | BrainAge_estima | Path_brainAge_estima |
|---|---|---|---|
| NC_AD | |||
| CwC | 0.059, 0.0363 | 0.518, 0.2354 | 0.682, 0.0235 |
| ACwF | 0.167, 0.0460 | 0.735, 0.3411 | 0.965, 0.0331 |
| CwF1 | 0.166, 0.0456 | 0.736, 0.3398 | 0.994, 0.0053 |
| CwF2 | 0.169, 0.0487 | 0.735, 0.3609 | 0.936, 0.0195 |
| NC_MCI | |||
| CwC | 0.071, 0.0412 | 0.3744, 0.1909 | 0.5028, 0.0403 |
| ACwF | 0.109, 0.0398 | 0.777, 0.3007 | 0.959, 0.0322 |
| CwF1 | 0.108, 0.0378 | 0.766, 0.3046 | 0.986, 0.0121 |
| CwF2 | 0.111, 0.0436 | 0.788, 0.3128 | 0.932, 0.0203 |
| MCI_AD | |||
| CwC | 0.035, 0.0257 | 0.29, 0.0681 | 0.311, 0.0569 |
| ACwF | 0.186, 0.0338 | 0.854, 0.1970 | 0.929, 0.0799 |
| CwF1 | 0.186, 0.0280 | 0.828, 0.2483 | 0.981, 0.0175 |
| CwF2 | 0.186, 0.0404 | 0.879, 0.1372 | 0.877, 0.0844 |
| NC_MCI_AD | |||
| CwC | 0.045, 0.0277 | 0.397, 0.1822 | 0.598, 0.0232 |
| ACwF | 0.141, 0.0284 | 0.691, 0.2917 | 0.961, 0.0342 |
| CwF1 | 0.139, 0.0213 | 0.615, 0.3093 | 0.992, 0.0048 |
| CwF2 | 0.143, 0.0352 | 0.766, 0.2670 | 0.929, 0.0166 |