MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390753190 · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00079

Investigating the impact of motion in the scanner on brain age predictions

2024· article· en· W4390753190 sur OpenAlexafffund
Roqaie Moqadam, Mahsa Dadar, Yashar Zeighami

Notice bibliographique

RevueImaging Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institutes of HealthFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCompute Canada
Mots-clésMotion (physics)Brain agingMagnetic resonance imagingVoxelScannerPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscienceCognitionRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Brain Age Gap (BAG) is defined as the difference between the brain's predicted age and the chronological age of an individual. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based BAG can quantify acceleration of brain aging, and is used to infer brain health as aging and disease interact. Motion in the scanner is a common occurrence that can affect the acquired MRI data and act as a major confound in the derived models. As such, age-related changes in head motion may impact the observed age-related differences. However, the relationship between head motion and BAG as estimated by structural MRI has not been systematically examined. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of motion on voxel-based morphometry (VBM) based BAG. Data were obtained from two sources: i) T1-weighted (T1w) MRIs from the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (CamCAN) were used to train the brain age prediction model, and ii) T1w MRIs from the Movement-related artifacts (MR-ART) dataset were used to assess the impact of motion on BAG. MR-ART includes one motion-free and two motion-affected (one low and one high) 3D T1w MRIs. We also visually rated the motion levels of the MR-ART MRIs from 0 to 5, with 0 meaning no motion and 5 high motion levels. All images were pre-processed through a standard VBM pipeline. GM density across cortical and subcortical regions were then used to train the brain age prediction model and assess the relationship between BAG and MRI motion. Principal component analysis was used to perform dimension reduction and extract the VBM-based features. BAG was estimated by regressing out the portion of delta age explained by chronological age. Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between BAG and motion session as well as motion severity, including participant IDs as random effects. We repeated the same analysis using cortical thickness based on FreeSurfer 7.4.1 and to compare the results for volumetric versus surface-based measures of brain morphometry. In contrast with the session with no induced motion, predicted delta age was significantly higher for high motion sessions 2.35 years (t = 5.17, p < 0.0001), with marginal effect for low motion sessions 0.95 years (t = 2.11, p = 0.035) for VBM analysis as well as 3.46 years (t = 11.45, p < 0.0001) for high motion and 2.28 years (t = 7.54, p < 0.0001) for low motion based on cortical thickness. In addition, delta age was significantly associated with motion severity as evaluated by visual rating 0.45 years per rating level (t = 4.59, p < 0.0001) for VBM analysis and 0.83 years per motion level (t = 12.89, p < 0.0001) for cortical thickness analysis. Motion in the scanner can significantly impact brain age estimates, and needs to be accounted for as a confound, particularly when studying populations that are known to have higher levels of motion in the scanner. These results have significant implications for brain age studies in aging and neurodegeneration. Based on these findings, we recommend assessment and inclusion of visual motion ratings in such studies. In cases that the visual rating proves prohibitive, we recommend the inclusion of normalized Euler number from FreeSurfer as defined in the manuscript as a covariate in the models.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,997
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,329
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations54
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueImaging NeuroscienceMême sujetFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesTravaux en français237 207