MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405637511 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae382

Brain age in genetic and idiopathic Parkinson's disease

2024· article· en· W4405637511 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Teipel, Alexander Storch, Andreas Hermann, Martin Dyrba, Julia Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDoD Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of California, San DiegoBioClinicaSynarcUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMedpaceBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsDementiaDiseaseCohortCognitive declineMedicineAsymptomaticNeuroimagingLRRK2Alzheimer's diseaseInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain-age gap, i.e. the difference between the brain age estimated from structural MRI data and the chronological age of an individual, has been proposed as a summary measure of brain integrity in neurodegenerative diseases. Here, we aimed to determine the brain-age gap in genetic and idiopathic Parkinson's disease and its association with surrogate markers of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease pathology and with rates of cognitive and motor function decline. We studied 1200 cases from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative cohort, including idiopathic Parkinson's disease, asymptomatic and clinical mutation carriers in the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 gene (LRRK2) and the glucocerebrosidase gene (GBA), and normal controls using a cohort study design. For comparison, we studied 187 Alzheimer's disease dementia cases and 254 controls from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. We used Bayesian ANOVA to determine associations of the brain-age gap with diagnosis, and baseline measures of motor and cognitive function, dopamine transporter activity and CSF markers of Alzheimer's disease type amyloid-β42 and phosphotau pathology. Associations of brain-age gap with rates of cognitive and motor function decline were determined using Bayesian generalized mixed effect models. The brain-age gap in idiopathic Parkinson's disease patients was 0.7 years compared to controls, but 5.9 years in Alzheimer's disease dementia cases. In contrast, asymptomatic LRRK2 individuals had a 1.1. year younger brain age than controls. Across all cases, the brain-age gap was associated with motor impairment and (in the clinically manifest PD cases) reduced dopamine transporter activity, but less with CSF amyloid-β42 and phosphotau. In idiopathic Parkinson's disease cases, however, the brain-age gap was associated with lower CSF amyloid-β42 levels. In sporadic and genetic Parkinson's disease cases, a higher brain-age gap was associated with faster decline in episodic memory, and executive and motor function, whereas in asymptomatic LRRK2 cases, a smaller brain-age gap was associated with faster cognitive decline. In conclusion, brain age was sensitive to Alzheimer's disease like rather than Parkinson's disease like brain atrophy. Once an individual had idiopathic Parkinson's disease, their brain age was associated with markers of Alzheimer's disease rather than Parkinson's disease. Asymptomatic LRRK2 cases had seemingly younger brains than controls, and in these cases, younger brain age was associated with poorer cognitive outcome. This suggests that the term brain age is misleading when applied to disease stages where reactive brain changes with apparent volume increases rather than atrophy may drive the calculation of the brain age.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207