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

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/

Linear external skeletal fixation applied in minimally invasive fashion for stabilization of nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of linear external skeletal fixation (ESF) applied using minimally invasive techniques in dogs and cats. Study design Retrospective study. Animals Forty-nine dogs and 6 cats. Methods Medical records of cases with nonarticular tibial fractures, repaired using linear ESF at a single academic institution between July 2010 and 2020, were reviewed. All records of cases that had nonarticular tibial fractures repaired using linear ESF were included. Information was collected regarding signalment, surgical procedures performed, perioperative care, radiographic evaluation, and postoperative complications. Results Intraoperative imaging was used in 40/55 (72%) of cases. Tibal plateau angle (TPA), tibial mechanical medial proximal and distal tibial angles (mMPTA and mMDTA, respectively) were not affected by intraoperative imaging (P = .344, P = .687, P = .418). A total of 22 (40%) complications occurred. Of these, 18 were considered minor and 4 were considered major. Open fractures had more major complications than closed fractures (P = .019). All fractures reached radiographic union of the fracture. The mean ± SD time to external fixator removal was 71 ± 48 days. Conclusion Linear ESF applied using minimally invasive techniques with or without intraoperative imaging was an effective treatment for nonarticular tibial fractures. Clinical significance Closed application of linear ESF should be considered as a minimally invasive option for stabilizing nonarticular tibial fractures.This is the published version of the following article: Sherman, Alec H., Karl H. Kraus, Danielle Watt, Lingnan Yuan, and Jonathan P. Mochel. "Linear external skeletal fixation applied in minimally invasive fashion for stabilization of nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats." Veterinary Surgery (2022). DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13911. Copyright 2022 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. Posted with permission