P4‐101: BRAIN AGING HETEROGENEITY ELUCIDATED VIA MACHINE LEARNING: THE MULTI‐SITE ISTAGING DIMENSIONAL NEUROIMAGING REFERENCE SYSTEM
Abstract
Brain aging is affected by a number of underlying neuropathological processes, which are typically manifested by different neuroanatomical, functional and neuropathological patterns. Disentangling this heterogeneity and associating it with demographic, cognitive, clinical and genetic risk factors for AD is challenging, and requires sophisticated multi-variate methodology and large sample sizes. Neuroimaging offers complex multi-parametric information on patterns of brain structure, functional connectivity, as well as amyloid and tau burden. We formed the iSTAGING consortium, a large-scale pooling of brain scans from over 15,000 subjects/16 studies/dozens of sites (Fig. 1), aiming to understand and visualize brain aging patterns and relate them to non-imaging measures. Preliminary results from six cohorts (ADNI1, ADNI2, SHIP, BLSA1, BLSA2, Penn ADC; n=3,179) covering a heterogeneous spectrum of cognitively normal brain aging, MCI and AD were harmonized and used to prototype a dimensional system. For clarity, three dimensions are visualized herein, using machine-learning: 1) SPARE-BA, a subject-specific index of age-related brain atrophy patterns; 2) SPARE-AD, an index previously developed to capture AD-like atrophy patterns; 3) white matter hyperintensities (WMH) burden. Individual brain regions were also measured but are not displayed herein. The cross-sectional variation according to clinical diagnosis (CD) and APOE4 genotype was visualized in this 3D prototype iSTAGING refe…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Inter-scanner reproducibility is an issue of rapidly rising significance with the emergence of large-scale meta/mega-analyses that pool data from multiple studies.
“The latter was a test of inter-scanner reproducibility, an issue that is of rapidly rising significance with the emergence of large-scale meta/mega-analyses that pool data from multiple studies (Thompson et al., 2014; Davatzikos, 2018).”
From A comparison of Freesurfer and multi-atlas MUSE for brain anatomy segmentation: Findings about size and age bias, and inter-scanner stability in multi-site aging studies (2020) · cites this paper as Davatzikos, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Srinivasan, D., Erus, G., Doshi, J., Wolk, D. A., Shou, H., Habes, M., & Davatzikos, C. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117248 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Davatzikos, C., & iSTAGING Consortium
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Davatzikos, Christos
- ORCID
- Davatzikos, Christos
- Venue
- Alzheimer's & Dementia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7S_Part_28
- ISSN
- 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5279
- OpenAlex
- W2897802381
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Keywords
- brain aging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review