Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 15;45(10):e26768.
doi: 10.1002/hbm.26768.

Brain-age prediction: Systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size

Yuetong Yu  1 Hao-Qi Cui  1 Shalaila S Haas  2 Faye New  2 Nicole Sanford  1 Kevin Yu  1 Denghuang Zhan  3 Guoyuan Yang  4 Jia-Hong Gao  5 Dongtao Wei  6 Jiang Qiu  6 Nerisa Banaj  7 Dorret I Boomsma  8 Alan Breier  9 Henry Brodaty  10 Randy L Buckner  11   12 Jan K Buitelaar  13 Dara M Cannon  14 Xavier Caseras  15 Vincent P Clark  16 Patricia J Conrod  17 Fabrice Crivello  18 Eveline A Crone  19   20 Udo Dannlowski  21 Christopher G Davey  22 Lieuwe de Haan  23 Greig I de Zubicaray  24 Annabella Di Giorgio  25 Lukas Fisch  21 Simon E Fisher  26   27 Barbara Franke  27   28   29 David C Glahn  30 Dominik Grotegerd  21 Oliver Gruber  31 Raquel E Gur  32 Ruben C Gur  32 Tim Hahn  21 Ben J Harrison  22 Sean Hatton  33 Ian B Hickie  33 Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol  2   34   35 Alec J Jamieson  22 Terry L Jernigan  36 Jiyang Jiang  10 Andrew J Kalnin  37 Sim Kang  38 Nicole A Kochan  10 Anna Kraus  21 Jim Lagopoulos  33 Luisa Lazaro  39 Brenna C McDonald  40 Colm McDonald  14 Katie L McMahon  41 Benson Mwangi  42 Fabrizio Piras  7 Raul Rodriguez-Cruces  43 Jessica Royer  43 Perminder S Sachdev  10 Theodore D Satterthwaite  32 Andrew J Saykin  40 Gunter Schumann  44   45 Pierluigi Sevaggi  46 Jordan W Smoller  12   47   48 Jair C Soares  42 Gianfranco Spalletta  7 Christian K Tamnes  49 Julian N Trollor  10   50 Dennis Van't Ent  8 Daniela Vecchio  7 Henrik Walter  51 Yang Wang  52 Bernd Weber  53 Wei Wen  10 Lara M Wierenga  19 Steven C R Williams  54 Mon-Ju Wu  42 Giovana B Zunta-Soares  42 Boris Bernhardt  43 Paul Thompson  55 Sophia Frangou  1   2 Ruiyang Ge  1 ENIGMA‐Lifespan Working Group
Affiliations

Brain-age prediction: Systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size

Yuetong Yu et al. Hum Brain Mapp. .

Abstract

Structural neuroimaging data have been used to compute an estimate of the biological age of the brain (brain-age) which has been associated with other biologically and behaviorally meaningful measures of brain development and aging. The ongoing research interest in brain-age has highlighted the need for robust and publicly available brain-age models pre-trained on data from large samples of healthy individuals. To address this need we have previously released a developmental brain-age model. Here we expand this work to develop, empirically validate, and disseminate a pre-trained brain-age model to cover most of the human lifespan. To achieve this, we selected the best-performing model after systematically examining the impact of seven site harmonization strategies, age range, and sample size on brain-age prediction in a discovery sample of brain morphometric measures from 35,683 healthy individuals (age range: 5-90 years; 53.59% female). The pre-trained models were tested for cross-dataset generalizability in an independent sample comprising 2101 healthy individuals (age range: 8-80 years; 55.35% female) and for longitudinal consistency in a further sample comprising 377 healthy individuals (age range: 9-25 years; 49.87% female). This empirical examination yielded the following findings: (1) the accuracy of age prediction from morphometry data was higher when no site harmonization was applied; (2) dividing the discovery sample into two age-bins (5-40 and 40-90 years) provided a better balance between model accuracy and explained age variance than other alternatives; (3) model accuracy for brain-age prediction plateaued at a sample size exceeding 1600 participants. These findings have been incorporated into CentileBrain (https://centilebrain.org/#/brainAGE2), an open-science, web-based platform for individualized neuroimaging metrics.

Keywords: benchmarking; brain aging; brainAGE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jair C. Soares reports the following conflicts of interest: ALKERMES (Advisory Board), BOEHRINGER Ingelheim (Consultant), COMPASS Pathways (Research Grant), JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Consultant), LIVANOVA (Consultant), RELMADA (Research Grant), SUNOVION (Research Grant), and Mind Med (Research Grant).

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart of brain age model optimization: after conducting the analysis with FreeSurfer and stratifying the samples by sex, the study proceeded as follows. (1) The discovery sample was utilized to evaluate the impact of site‐harmonization strategies and age range. This analysis yielded the optimal site‐harmonization strategy. (2) The independent replication sample was employed to further investigate the influence of age range. The outcome of this analysis led to the determination of the optimal age bins and final models. (3) The independent longitudinal consistency sample was utilized to assess the longitudinal consistency of the pre‐trained optimal models.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Effect of site harmonization approach on the performance of models derived from repeated cross‐validation in different age bins of the discovery sample. Each bar represents one of the seven site handling methods. CORR, correlation coefficient between brain‐age and chronological age; MAE, mean absolute error between brain‐age and chronological age. Sex‐specific results in Figures S2 and S3.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Performance metrics derived from the application of the models pre‐trained on different age bins of the discovery sample to the corresponding age bins of the replication sample. CORR values averaged across sexes were 0.68 for 40‐year interval bins; and 0.86 for the full age range of the sample. MAE values averaged across sexes were 5.28 years for 40‐year interval bins; and 8.52 years for the full age range of the sample. Sex‐specific results are presented in Figure S4. CORR, correlation coefficient between brain‐age and chronological age; MAE, mean absolute error between brain‐age and chronological age.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Model performance as a function of the sample size in the two age bins (5–40 and 40–90 years) of the discovery sample. Model parameters for each bin were obtained by randomly resampling the discovery sample without replacement generating subsets of 200–6000 participants. The results are shown here as averages across sexes and the sex‐specific findings are presented in Figure S6. CORR, correlation coefficient between brain‐age and chronological age; MAE, mean absolute error between brain‐age and chronological age.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Model performance in longitudinal data. The left panel presents the CORR and MAE values for the first and second MRI scans, while the right panel exhibits the percentage changes (%) in CORR and MAE for the second scan compared to the first scan. The results were generated by employing models that had been trained on discovery samples from each age range division and then applied to the longitudinal consistency sample. CORR, correlation coefficient between brain‐age and chronological age; MAE, mean absolute error between brain age and chronological age.

References

    1. Baecker, L. , Dafflon, J. , da Costa, P. F. , Garcia‐Dias, R. , Vieira, S. , Scarpazza, C. , Calhoun, V. D. , Sato, J. R. , Mechelli, A. , & Pinaya, W. H. L. (2021). Brain age prediction: A comparison between machine learning models using region‐ and voxel‐based morphometric data. Human Brain Mapping, 42(8), 2332–2346. 10.1002/hbm.25368 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baecker, L. , Garcia‐Dias, R. , Vieira, S. , Scarpazza, C. , & Mechelli, A. (2021). Machine learning for brain age prediction: Introduction to methods and clinical applications. EbioMed, 72, 103600. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103600 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ball, G. , Kelly, C. E. , Beare, R. , & Seal, M. L. (2021). Individual variation underlying brain age estimates in typical development. NeuroImage, 235, 118036. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118036 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beck, D. , de Lange, A. G. , Maximov, I. I. , Richard, G. , Andreassen, O. A. , Nordvik, J. E. , & Westlye, L. T. (2021). White matter microstructure across the adult lifespan: A mixed longitudinal and cross‐sectional study using advanced diffusion models and brain‐age prediction. NeuroImage, 224, 117441. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117441 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beheshti, I. , Ganaie, M. A. , Paliwal, V. , Rastogi, A. , Razzak, I. , & Tanveer, M. (2022). Predicting brain age using machine learning algorithms: A comprehensive evaluation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(4), 1432–1440. 10.1109/JBHI.2021.3083187 - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding