Plasma Dynamics

Contains research objectives and summary of research on twenty-one projects split into three sections, with four sub-sections in the second section and reports on twelve research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant ENG75-06242)U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (Contract E(11-1)-2766)U.S. Energy Research and Development Agency (Contract E(11-1)-3070)U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (Contract E(11-1)-3070)Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T. Industrial Fellowshi

Plasma Dynamics

Contains research objectives and summary of research on eighteen research projects split into seven sections and reports on four research projects.U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Contract AT(l1-1)-3070)National Science Foundation (Grant GK-37979X1

Plasma Dynamics

Contains research objectives and summary of research on nineteen research projects split into five sections.National Science Foundation (Grant ENG75-06242-A01)U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (Contract E(11-1)-2766)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Grant AFOSR-77-3143)U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (Contract EY-76-C2-02-3070.*000

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

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.</p

Brain‐age prediction: systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size

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

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

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.<br/