Cerebral white matter hyperintensity volumes: Normative age- and sex-specific values from 15 population-based cohorts comprising 14,876 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) increase with age, with marked interindividual variation. There is a need for normative data by age and sex, to improve individualized WMH burden assessment. In this study, we pooled cross-sectional data from 15 population-based cohorts (14,876 nondemented individuals, age 18–97 years), through the Meta VCI Map consortium. Whole brain and tract-specific MRI-assessed WMH volumes were calculated in MNI-152 space. We used quantile regression to create centile curves of WMH volume versus age, stratified by sex. Total WMH volume and interindividual variance increased exponentially with age for both sexes, with females showing higher WMH volumes. WMH volume increase with aging was not uniform across the white matter, but instead followed one of three different patterns depending on location. Age- and sex-specific normative data for total and regional WMH volumes were created. Our study provides detailed information on the normal distribution of total and regional WMH volumes across adulthood. The normative data enable a quantitative approach to interpreting total and regional WMH volumes in clinical practice and research settings. ● White matter hyperintensity (WMH) volumes are higher in females compared to males. ● WMH volumes increase exponentially and double every 10 years of age for both sexes. ● WMH volumes show marked interindividual variation at all ages. ● Regional WMH volumes follow three differential patterns with aging. ● Age- and sex-specific normative data for WMH volumes across adulthood are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".