MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7118913944 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_106425

White Matter Hyperintensities on Brain MRI are Related to Brain Atrophy and Accelerated Brain Age

2025· article· en· W7118913944 on OpenAlexaff
Somayeh Meysami, Cyrus A. Raji, Soojin Lee, Saurabh Garg, Nasrin Akbari, Rodrigo Solis Pompa, Ahmed Gouda, Thanh D. Nguyen, Saqib Basar, Yosef Gavriel Chodakiewitz, David A. Merrill, Amar Patel, Daniel J. Durand, Sam Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Academic Health Science Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityNeuroimagingFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryAtrophyWhite matterBrain sizeBrain agingMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Brain age – an estimate of chronological age‐ derived from structural brain MR neuroimaging may reveal underlying factors driving brain aging. White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are areas of abnormally high signal on FLAIR that frequently reflect chronic small vessel ischemic changes and potentially increased aging. Method Overall, 1,164 healthy participants from four sites (mean chronological age 55.17 ± 12.37 years, 52% women; 48% men; 39% non‐white) were scanned on 1.5T MR machines with a whole‐body protocol. For each participant, a 2D multi‐slice FLAIR image was obtained. A 2D convolutional neural network, trained on data from 120 individuals across three public datasets (MICCAI 2017, ISLES2015, and ISLES2022), was employed to automatically segment WMH from the FLAIR scans. Deep learning with FastSurfer on MPRAGE trained on 134 participants aged 27‐66 and segmented 96 brain regions. Brain age was computed using a regression‐based 3D Simple Fully Convolutional Network trained on in‐house T1‐weighted MRI scans collected from 5,500 healthy individuals (, aged 18 to 89 years). Brain age gap (BAG) was computed by subtracting chronological age from brain age. Partial correlation and regression models evaluated the relationship between WMH normalized to total brain volume (gray matter and white matter), brain age, brain volumes controlling for age, sex, and total intracranial volume. Chronological age was not adjusted for in the brain age models to avoid collinearity. Result Mean brain age was similar to chronological age (mean brain age = 56.04 ± 12.65, mean BAG = 0.69). The median of WMH were 1.4 mL (0.75‐2.51 mL). Increased WMH were related to lower brain volumes in the i) hippocampus (rp= ‐0.13, p = 1.174e‐05) ii) cerebral white matter (rp= ‐0.08, p = .004) iii) thalamus (rp= ‐0.16, p = 1.634e‐07). Additionally, increased WMH was related to larger cerebral ventricle size (rp= 0.28, p = 6.604e‐21). The regression model showed that increased WMH was related to increased brain age (t= 5.92, rp= .42, p <.001) and increased brain age gap (t= 4.07, rp= .12, p <.001). Conclusion Increased WMH are related to brain atrophy – in both Alzheimer's and non‐Alzheimer's affected regions – and are also related to increased brain age and accelerated brain aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→