Pedro L Ballester1, Laura Tomaz da Silva2, Matheus Marcon2,3, Nathalia Bianchini Esper3,4, Benicio N Frey5,6, Augusto Buchweitz3,5,7, Felipe Meneguzzi2. 1. Neuroscience Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. School of Technology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3. BRAINS - Brain Institute of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 4. Graduate School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil. 5. Mood Disorders Program, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Women's Health Concerns Clinic, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 7. Graduate School of Psychology, School of Health and Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Abstract
Problem: Chronological aging in later life is associated with brain degeneration processes and increased risk for disease such as stroke and dementia. With a worldwide tendency of aging populations and increased longevity, mental health, and psychiatric research have paid increasing attention to understanding brain-related changes of aging. Recent findings suggest there is a brain age gap (a difference between chronological age and brain age predicted by brain imaging indices); the magnitude of the gap may indicate early onset of brain aging processes and disease. Artificial intelligence has allowed for a narrowing of the gap in chronological and predicted brain age. However, the factors that drive model predictions of brain age are still unknown, and there is not much about these factors that can be gleaned from the black-box nature of machine learning models. The goal of the present study was to test a brain age regression approach that is more amenable to interpretation by researchers and clinicians. Methods: Using convolutional neural networks we trained multiple regressor models to predict brain age based on single slices of magnetic resonance imaging, which included gray matter- or white matter-segmented inputs. We evaluated the trained models in all brain image slices to generate a final prediction of brain age. Unlike whole-brain approaches to classification, the slice-level predictions allows for the identification of which brain slices and associated regions have the largest difference between chronological and neuroimaging-derived brain age. We also evaluated how model predictions were influenced by slice index and plane, participant age and sex, and MRI data collection site. Results: The results show, first, that the specific slice used for prediction affects prediction error (i.e., difference between chronological age and neuroimaging-derived brain age); second, the MRI site-stratified separation of training and test sets removed site effects and also minimized sex effects; third, the choice of MRI slice plane influences the overall error of the model. Conclusion: Compared to whole brain-based predictive models of neuroimaging-derived brain age, slice-based approach improves the interpretability and therefore the reliability of the prediction of brain age using MRI data.
Problem: Chronological aging in later life is associated with brain degeneration processes and increased risk for disease such as stroke and dementia. With a worldwide tendency of aging populations and increased longevity, mental health, and psychiatric research have paid increasing attention to understanding brain-related changes of aging. Recent findings suggest there is a brain age gap (a difference between chronological age and brain age predicted by brain imaging indices); the magnitude of the gap may indicate early onset of brain aging processes and disease. Artificial intelligence has allowed for a narrowing of the gap in chronological and predicted brain age. However, the factors that drive model predictions of brain age are still unknown, and there is not much about these factors that can be gleaned from the black-box nature of machine learning models. The goal of the present study was to test a brain age regression approach that is more amenable to interpretation by researchers and clinicians. Methods: Using convolutional neural networks we trained multiple regressor models to predict brain age based on single slices of magnetic resonance imaging, which included gray matter- or white matter-segmented inputs. We evaluated the trained models in all brain image slices to generate a final prediction of brain age. Unlike whole-brain approaches to classification, the slice-level predictions allows for the identification of which brain slices and associated regions have the largest difference between chronological and neuroimaging-derived brain age. We also evaluated how model predictions were influenced by slice index and plane, participantage and sex, and MRI data collection site. Results: The results show, first, that the specific slice used for prediction affects prediction error (i.e., difference between chronological age and neuroimaging-derived brain age); second, the MRI site-stratified separation of training and test sets removed site effects and also minimized sex effects; third, the choice of MRI slice plane influences the overall error of the model. Conclusion: Compared to whole brain-based predictive models of neuroimaging-derived brain age, slice-based approach improves the interpretability and therefore the reliability of the prediction of brain age using MRI data.
Authors: James H Cole; Rudra P K Poudel; Dimosthenis Tsagkrasoulis; Matthan W A Caan; Claire Steves; Tim D Spector; Giovanni Montana Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joanne Voisey; Bruce R Lawford; C Phillip Morris; Leesa F Wockner; Ernest P Noble; Ross McD Young; Divya Mehta Journal: NPJ Schizophr Date: 2017-09-04
Authors: John R Zech; Marcus A Badgeley; Manway Liu; Anthony B Costa; Joseph J Titano; Eric Karl Oermann Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Tobias Kaufmann; Dennis van der Meer; Nhat Trung Doan; Emanuel Schwarz; Martina J Lund; Ingrid Agartz; Dag Alnæs; Deanna M Barch; Ramona Baur-Streubel; Alessandro Bertolino; Francesco Bettella; Mona K Beyer; Erlend Bøen; Stefan Borgwardt; Christine L Brandt; Jan Buitelaar; Elisabeth G Celius; Simon Cervenka; Annette Conzelmann; Aldo Córdova-Palomera; Anders M Dale; Dominique J F de Quervain; Pasquale Di Carlo; Srdjan Djurovic; Erlend S Dørum; Sarah Eisenacher; Torbjørn Elvsåshagen; Thomas Espeseth; Helena Fatouros-Bergman; Lena Flyckt; Barbara Franke; Oleksandr Frei; Beathe Haatveit; Asta K Håberg; Hanne F Harbo; Catharina A Hartman; Dirk Heslenfeld; Pieter J Hoekstra; Einar A Høgestøl; Terry L Jernigan; Rune Jonassen; Erik G Jönsson; Peter Kirsch; Iwona Kłoszewska; Knut K Kolskår; Nils Inge Landrø; Stephanie Le Hellard; Klaus-Peter Lesch; Simon Lovestone; Arvid Lundervold; Astri J Lundervold; Luigi A Maglanoc; Ulrik F Malt; Patrizia Mecocci; Ingrid Melle; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Torgeir Moberget; Linn B Norbom; Jan Egil Nordvik; Lars Nyberg; Jaap Oosterlaan; Marco Papalino; Andreas Papassotiropoulos; Paul Pauli; Giulio Pergola; Karin Persson; Geneviève Richard; Jaroslav Rokicki; Anne-Marthe Sanders; Geir Selbæk; Alexey A Shadrin; Olav B Smeland; Hilkka Soininen; Piotr Sowa; Vidar M Steen; Magda Tsolaki; Kristine M Ulrichsen; Bruno Vellas; Lei Wang; Eric Westman; Georg C Ziegler; Mathias Zink; Ole A Andreassen; Lars T Westlye Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: B A Jonsson; G Bjornsdottir; T E Thorgeirsson; L M Ellingsen; G Bragi Walters; D F Gudbjartsson; H Stefansson; K Stefansson; M O Ulfarsson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 14.919