BrainAGE methods: influence of field strength, voxel size, race, and ethnicity

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe brain‐age algorithm utilizes a regression model of the typical aging trajectory, trained on structural MRIs and chronological ages of a large population of healthy individuals spanning a wide age range (Cole et al. 2017, Neuroimage). MRIs from new populations are then compared to this regression for estimating brain age, a biomarker of brain health. Few studies have investigated stability of the brain‐age model across field strength and the influence of voxel size and race is understudied.MethodWe analyzed stability of the brain‐age model within and across field strength in the ADNI cohort (n = 75: 25 CN/25 MCI/25 AD) using intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICC) and multiple R2 values. Impact of voxel size (0.8mm, 1mm, and ADNI2 sequence 1.1×1.1×1.2mm) was compared in a sample from the Indiana ADRC (n = 48: 19 CN/16 SCD/10 MCI/3 AD). We then calculated brain age gap (BAG; estimated– chronological age) and compared results across self‐reported racial and ethnic groups matched on diagnosis, sex, age, education, and handedness using independent t‐tests. BAG results of African Americans (AAs) from the IADRC (n = 71: 30 CN/19 SCD/15 MCI/7 AD) and ADNI (n = 147: 41 CN/20 EMCI/27 LMCI/15 AD/44 SMC), and Hispanics (n = 76: 24 CN/16 EMCI/11 LMCI/11 AD/14 SMC) and Asians (n = 47: 12 CN/7 EMCI/4 LMCI/9 AD/15 SMC) from ADNI only, were compared to matched non‐Hispanic Whites (NHWs).ResultThe brain‐age method was stable across repeated scans within field strength, but less stable across field strengths (Fig.1). 3T scans consistently estimated individuals to be ∼4.43 years younger than the 1.5T scans. The method was relatively stable within and across voxel sizes (Fig.2). There was a significant difference in BAG between races (NHWs and AAs, and NHWs and Asians), but not between ethnicities (NHWs and Hispanics) (Fig.3).ConclusionDue to the model’s variability across field strength, we propose a linear offset equation for data harmonization (Fig.1): ((3T estimate/0.92)+9.55). We are also investigating ComBat harmonization to eliminate effects of field strength. While other studies show structural differences across race, it will be important to determine whether the self‐reported racial differences in BAG are due to inherent model bias or true biological differences.