Assessment of brain age in posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from the ENIGMA PTSD and brain age working groups

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with markers of accelerated aging. Estimates of brain age, compared to chronological age, may clarify the effects of PTSD on the brain and may inform treatment approaches targeting the neurobiology of aging in the context of PTSD. METHOD: Adult subjects (N = 2229; 56.2% male) aged 18-69 years (mean = 35.6, SD = 11.0) from 21 ENIGMA-PGC PTSD sites underwent T1-weighted brain structural magnetic resonance imaging, and PTSD assessment (PTSD+, n = 884). Previously trained voxel-wise (brainageR) and region-of-interest (BARACUS and PHOTON) machine learning pipelines were compared in a subset of control subjects (n = 386). Linear mixed effects models were conducted in the full sample (those with and without PTSD) to examine the effect of PTSD on brain predicted age difference (brain PAD; brain age - chronological age) controlling for chronological age, sex, and scan site. RESULTS: BrainageR most accurately predicted brain age in a subset (n = 386) of controls (brainageR: ICC = 0.71, R = 0.72, MAE = 5.68; PHOTON: ICC = 0.61, R = 0.62, MAE = 6.37; BARACUS: ICC = 0.47, R = 0.64, MAE = 8.80). Using brainageR, a three-way interaction revealed that young males with PTSD exhibited higher brain PAD relative to male controls in young and old age groups; old males with PTSD exhibited lower brain PAD compared to male controls of all ages. DISCUSSION: Differential impact of PTSD on brain PAD in younger versus older males may indicate a critical window when PTSD impacts brain aging, followed by age-related brain changes that are consonant with individuals without PTSD. Future longitudinal research is warranted to understand how PTSD impacts brain aging across the lifespan

Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guidelines now recommend routine assessment of global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk scores. We performed a systematic review to assess whether global CHD risk scores result in clinical benefits or harms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched MEDLINE (1966 through June 13, 2007) for articles relevant to our review. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included studies of any design that provided physicians with global risk scores or allowed them to calculate scores themselves, and then measured clinical benefits and/or harms. Two reviewers reviewed potentially relevant studies for inclusion and resolved disagreement by consensus. Data from each article was then abstracted into an evidence table by one reviewer and the quality of evidence was assessed independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>11 studies met criteria for inclusion in our review. Six studies addressed clinical benefits and 5 addressed clinical harms. Six studies were rated as "fair" quality and the others were deemed "methodologically limited". Two fair quality studies showed that physician knowledge of global CHD risk is associated with increased prescription of cardiovascular drugs in high risk (but not all) patients. Two additional fair quality studies showed no effect on their primary outcomes, but one was underpowered and the other focused on prescribing of lifestyle changes, rather than drugs whose prescribing might be expected to be targeted by risk level. One of these aforementioned studies showed improved blood pressure in high-risk patients, but no improvement in the proportion of patients at high risk, perhaps due to the high proportion of participants with baseline risks significantly exceeding the risk threshold. Two fair quality studies found no evidence of harm from patient knowledge of global risk scores when they were accompanied by counseling, and optional or scheduled follow-up. Other studies were too methodologically limited to draw conclusions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our review provides preliminary evidence that physicians' knowledge of global CHD risk scores may translate into modestly increased prescribing of cardiovascular drugs and modest short-term reductions in CHD risk factors without clinical harm. Whether these results are replicable, and translate across other practice settings or into improved long-term CHD outcomes remains to be seen.</p

A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites

Results of neuroimaging datasets aggregated from multiple sites may be biased by site-specific profiles in participants' demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as MRI acquisition protocols and scanning platforms. We compared the impact of four different harmonization methods on results obtained from analyses of cortical thickness data: (1) linear mixed-effects model (LME) that models site-specific random intercepts (LME INT), (2) LME that models both site-specific random intercepts and age-related random slopes (LME INT+ SLP), (3) ComBat, and (4) ComBat with a generalized additive model (ComBat-GAM). Our test case for comparing harmonization methods was cortical thickness data aggregated from 29 sites, which included 1,340 cases with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (6.2-81.8 years old) and 2,057 trauma-exposed controls without PTSD (6.3-85.2 years old). We found that, compared to the other data harmonization methods, data processed with ComBat-GAM was more sensitive to the detection of significant case-control differences (X-2 (3) = 63.704, p < 0.001) as well as casecontrol differences in age-related cortical thinning (X-2 (3) = 12.082, p = 0.007). Both ComBat and ComBat-GAM outperformed LME methods in detecting sex differences (X-2 (3) = 9.114, p = 0.028) in regional cortical thickness. ComBat-GAM also led to stronger estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of case-related cortical thickness reduction (corrected p-values < 0.001), weaker estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females than males (corrected p-values < 0.001), and stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females relative to males in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001). Our results support the use of ComBat-GAM to minimize confounds and increase statistical power when harmonizing data with non-linear effects, and the use of either ComBat or ComBat-GAM for harmonizing data with linear effects.Stress-related psychiatric disorders across the life spa