Geometric deep learning reveals a structuro-temporal understanding of healthy and pathologic brain aging.
Alzheimer’s disease
brain age
brain mapping
brain shape
dementia
geometric deep learning
human aging
Journal
Frontiers in aging neuroscience
ISSN: 1663-4365
Titre abrégé: Front Aging Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101525824
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
27
07
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
10
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Brain age has historically been investigated primarily at the whole brain level. The ability to deconstruct the brain into its composite parts and explore brain age at the sub-structure level offers unique advantages. These include the exploration of dynamic and interconnected relationships between different brain structures in healthy and pathologic aging. To achieve this, individual brain structures can be rendered as surface representations on which morphologic analysis is carried out. Combining the advantages of deep learning with the strengths of surface analysis, we investigate the aging process at the individual structure level with the hypothesis being that pathologic aging does not uniformly affect the aging process of individual structures. MRI data, age at scan time and diagnosis of dementia were collected from seven publicly available data repositories. The data from 17,440 unique subjects were collected, representing a total of 26,276 T1-weighted MRI accounting for longitudinal acquisitions. Surfaces were extracted for the cortex and seven subcortical structures. Deep learning networks were trained to estimate a subject's age either using several structures together or a single structure. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to assess the difference between the predicted and actual ages for all structures between healthy subjects, individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD). We then performed a longitudinal analysis to assess the difference in the aging pace for each structure between stable healthy controls and healthy controls converting to either MCI or ADD. Using an independent cohort of healthy subjects, age was well estimated for all structures. Cross-sectional analysis identified significantly larger predicted age for all structures in patients with either MCI and ADD compared to healthy subjects. Longitudinal analysis revealed varying degrees of involvement of individual subcortical structures for both age difference across groups and aging pace across time. These findings were most notable in the whole brain, cortex, hippocampus and amygdala. Although similar patterns of abnormal aging were found related to MCI and ADD, the involvement of individual subcortical structures varied greatly and was consistently more pronounced in ADD patients compared to MCI patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Brain age has historically been investigated primarily at the whole brain level. The ability to deconstruct the brain into its composite parts and explore brain age at the sub-structure level offers unique advantages. These include the exploration of dynamic and interconnected relationships between different brain structures in healthy and pathologic aging. To achieve this, individual brain structures can be rendered as surface representations on which morphologic analysis is carried out. Combining the advantages of deep learning with the strengths of surface analysis, we investigate the aging process at the individual structure level with the hypothesis being that pathologic aging does not uniformly affect the aging process of individual structures.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
MRI data, age at scan time and diagnosis of dementia were collected from seven publicly available data repositories. The data from 17,440 unique subjects were collected, representing a total of 26,276 T1-weighted MRI accounting for longitudinal acquisitions. Surfaces were extracted for the cortex and seven subcortical structures. Deep learning networks were trained to estimate a subject's age either using several structures together or a single structure. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to assess the difference between the predicted and actual ages for all structures between healthy subjects, individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD). We then performed a longitudinal analysis to assess the difference in the aging pace for each structure between stable healthy controls and healthy controls converting to either MCI or ADD.
Findings
UNASSIGNED
Using an independent cohort of healthy subjects, age was well estimated for all structures. Cross-sectional analysis identified significantly larger predicted age for all structures in patients with either MCI and ADD compared to healthy subjects. Longitudinal analysis revealed varying degrees of involvement of individual subcortical structures for both age difference across groups and aging pace across time. These findings were most notable in the whole brain, cortex, hippocampus and amygdala.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Although similar patterns of abnormal aging were found related to MCI and ADD, the involvement of individual subcortical structures varied greatly and was consistently more pronounced in ADD patients compared to MCI patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36081894
doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.895535
pmc: PMC9445244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
895535Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG072977
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Besson, Rogalski, Gill, Zhang, Martersteck and Bandt.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Neuroimage. 2013 Jul 15;75:58-67
pubmed: 23501046
Neuroimage. 2014 Nov 15;102 Pt 2:283-93
pubmed: 25109527
Neurobiol Aging. 2020 Mar;87:125-131
pubmed: 31918953
Nature. 1997 Jan 23;385(6614):313-8
pubmed: 9002514
Prog Neurobiol. 2012 Oct;99(1):15-41
pubmed: 22766041
Hum Brain Mapp. 2020 Aug 15;41(12):3235-3252
pubmed: 32320123
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 29;116(44):22341-22346
pubmed: 31615888
Arch Neurol. 1993 Sep;50(9):941-5
pubmed: 8363448
Dementia. 1996 Jan-Feb;7(1):10-14
pubmed: 8788076
Neuroimage. 2017 Jan;144(Pt B):262-269
pubmed: 26375206
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;24:102063
pubmed: 31795063
Neurology. 1998 Oct;51(4):993-9
pubmed: 9781519
Neuroimage. 2006 Sep;32(3):1060-9
pubmed: 16839779
Neuroimage. 2021 May 1;231:117822
pubmed: 33549751
Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3277-85
pubmed: 19022861
Med Image Anal. 2021 Feb;68:101871
pubmed: 33197716
Neuroimage. 2021 Jan 1;224:117441
pubmed: 33039618
Neurology. 1996 Mar;46(3):678-81
pubmed: 8618666
Brain Imaging Behav. 2021 Oct;15(5):2377-2386
pubmed: 33537928
Elife. 2020 May 19;9:
pubmed: 32423528
Neurobiol Aging. 2020 Apr;88:150-155
pubmed: 31932049
Hum Brain Mapp. 2017 Feb;38(2):997-1008
pubmed: 27807912
Neurocomputing. 2019 Sep 3;335:34-45
pubmed: 31595105
Transl Neurodegener. 2020 Jun 3;9(1):22
pubmed: 32493457
Magn Reson Med. 1988 Oct;8(2):200-8
pubmed: 3210957
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 15;116(42):21213-21218
pubmed: 31575746
Intelligence. 2019 Sep-Oct;76:101376
pubmed: 31787788
Int J Neural Syst. 2022 May;32(5):2250019
pubmed: 35313792
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:232-48
pubmed: 25613439
Neurobiol Aging. 2012 Mar;33(3):623.e1-623.e13
pubmed: 21524432
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 27;8(6):e67346
pubmed: 23826273
Brain Struct Funct. 2017 Jan;222(1):83-99
pubmed: 26943919
Neuroimage. 2017 Dec;163:115-124
pubmed: 28765056
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2021 Jul;91:101939
pubmed: 34082280
J Comp Neurol. 2013 Dec 15;521(18):4124-44
pubmed: 23852922
J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;80(3):1311-1327
pubmed: 33682707
Brain Behav. 2018 Aug;8(8):e01020
pubmed: 29931756
Int J Neural Syst. 2020 Sep;30(9):2050044
pubmed: 32787634
Brain Struct Funct. 2018 Mar;223(2):701-712
pubmed: 28916842
Neuroimage. 1999 Feb;9(2):179-94
pubmed: 9931268
Neurobiol Aging. 2019 Feb;74:112-120
pubmed: 30448611
Nat Neurosci. 2019 Oct;22(10):1617-1623
pubmed: 31551603
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022 Feb;214:106585
pubmed: 34933227
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 19;116(8):3251-3255
pubmed: 30718410
Neuroimage. 2010 Apr 15;50(3):883-92
pubmed: 20070949
Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020 Dec;5(12):1095-1103
pubmed: 32859549
Brain. 1996 Dec;119 ( Pt 6):2001-7
pubmed: 9010004
Psychiatry Res. 2009 Apr 30;172(1):68-74
pubmed: 19250804
BMC Neurol. 2014 Oct 14;14:204
pubmed: 25412575
Neuroimage. 2017 Mar 1;148:179-188
pubmed: 27890805
Med Image Anal. 2020 Jul;63:101694
pubmed: 32417716
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Sep;24(3):513-9
pubmed: 16878302
Rev Roum Physiol. 1969;6(4):259-66
pubmed: 5401934
Neuroimage. 2019 Oct 15;200:528-539
pubmed: 31201988
Arch Neurol. 2003 Jul;60(7):989-94
pubmed: 12873856
Sci Data. 2014 Dec 09;1:140049
pubmed: 25977800
Neuroimage. 1999 Feb;9(2):195-207
pubmed: 9931269