Predicting Age From Brain EEG Signals—A Machine Learning Approach

Objective: The brain age gap estimate (BrainAGE) is the difference between the estimated age and the individual chronological age. BrainAGE was studied primarily using MRI techniques. EEG signals in combination with machine learning (ML) approaches were not commonly used for the human age prediction, and BrainAGE. We investigated whether age-related changes are affecting brain EEG signals, and whether we can predict the chronological age and obtain BrainAGE estimates using a rigorous ML framework with a novel and extensive EEG features extraction.Methods: EEG data were obtained from 468 healthy, mood/anxiety, eating and substance use disorder participants (297 females) from the Tulsa-1000, a naturalistic longitudinal study based on Research Domain Criteria framework. Five sets of preprocessed EEG features across channels and frequency bands were used with different ML methods to predict age. Using a nested-cross-validation (NCV) approach and stack-ensemble learning from EEG features, the predicted age was estimated. The important features and their spatial distributions were deduced.Results: The stack-ensemble age prediction model achieved R2 = 0.37 (0.06), Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 6.87(0.69) and RMSE = 8.46(0.59) in years. The age and predicted age correlation was r = 0.6. The feature importance revealed that age predictors are spread out across different feature types. The NCV approach produced a reliable age estimation, with features consistent behavior across different folds.Conclusion: Our rigorous ML framework and extensive EEG signal features allow a reliable estimation of chronological age, and BrainAGE. This general framework can be extended to test EEG association with and to predict/study other physiological relevant responses

A Nonlinear Simulation Framework Supports Adjusting for Age When Analyzing BrainAGE

Several imaging modalities, including T1-weighted structural imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional MRI can show chronological age related changes. Employing machine learning algorithms, an individual's imaging data can predict their age with reasonable accuracy. While details vary according to modality, the general strategy is to: (1) extract image-related features, (2) build a model on a training set that uses those features to predict an individual's age, (3) validate the model on a test dataset, producing a predicted age for each individual, (4) define the “Brain Age Gap Estimate” (BrainAGE) as the difference between an individual's predicted age and his/her chronological age, (5) estimate the relationship between BrainAGE and other variables of interest, and (6) make inferences about those variables and accelerated or delayed brain aging. For example, a group of individuals with overall positive BrainAGE may show signs of accelerated aging in other variables as well. There is inevitably an overestimation of the age of younger individuals and an underestimation of the age of older individuals due to “regression to the mean.” The correlation between chronological age and BrainAGE may significantly impact the relationship between BrainAGE and other variables of interest when they are also related to age. In this study, we examine the detectability of variable effects under different assumptions. We use empirical results from two separate datasets [training = 475 healthy volunteers, aged 18–60 years (259 female); testing = 489 participants including people with mood/anxiety, substance use, eating disorders and healthy controls, aged 18–56 years (312 female)] to inform simulation parameter selection. Outcomes in simulated and empirical data strongly support the proposal that models incorporating BrainAGE should include chronological age as a covariate. We propose either including age as a covariate in step 5 of the above framework, or employing a multistep procedure where age is regressed on BrainAGE prior to step 5, producing BrainAGE Residualized (BrainAGER) scores

Diagnosis of bipolar disorders and body mass index predict clustering based on similarities in cortical thickness-ENIGMA study in 2436 individuals

AIMS: Rates of obesity have reached epidemic proportions, especially among people with psychiatric disorders. While the effects of obesity on the brain are of major interest in medicine, they remain markedly under-researched in psychiatry. METHODS: We obtained body mass index (BMI) and magnetic resonance imaging-derived regional cortical thickness, surface area from 836 bipolar disorders (BD) and 1600 control individuals from 14 sites within the ENIGMA-BD Working Group. We identified regionally specific profiles of cortical thickness using K-means clustering and studied clinical characteristics associated with individual cortical profiles. RESULTS: We detected two clusters based on similarities among participants in cortical thickness. The lower thickness cluster (46.8% of the sample) showed thinner cortex, especially in the frontal and temporal lobes and was associated with diagnosis of BD, higher BMI, and older age. BD individuals in the low thickness cluster were more likely to have the diagnosis of bipolar disorder I and less likely to be treated with lithium. In contrast, clustering based on similarities in the cortical surface area was unrelated to BD or BMI and only tracked age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that both BD and obesity are associated with similar alterations in cortical thickness, but not surface area. The fact that obesity increased the chance of having low cortical thickness could explain differences in cortical measures among people with BD. The thinner cortex in individuals with higher BMI, which was additive and similar to the BD-associated alterations, may suggest that treating obesity could lower the extent of cortical thinning in BD

Mega-analysis of association between obesity and cortical morphology in bipolar disorders:ENIGMA study in 2832 participants

Background: Obesity is highly prevalent and disabling, especially in individuals with severe mental illness including bipolar disorders (BD). The brain is a target organ for both obesity and BD. Yet, we do not understand how cortical brain alterations in BD and obesity interact. Methods: We obtained body mass index (BMI) and MRI-derived regional cortical thickness, surface area from 1231 BD and 1601 control individuals from 13 countries within the ENIGMA-BD Working Group. We jointly modeled the statistical effects of BD and BMI on brain structure using mixed effects and tested for interaction and mediation. We also investigated the impact of medications on the BMI-related associations. Results: BMI and BD additively impacted the structure of many of the same brain regions. Both BMI and BD were negatively associated with cortical thickness, but not surface area. In most regions the number of jointly used psychiatric medication classes remained associated with lower cortical thickness when controlling for BMI. In a single region, fusiform gyrus, about a third of the negative association between number of jointly used psychiatric medications and cortical thickness was mediated by association between the number of medications and higher BMI. Conclusions: We confirmed consistent associations between higher BMI and lower cortical thickness, but not surface area, across the cerebral mantle, in regions which were also associated with BD. Higher BMI in people with BD indicated more pronounced brain alterations. BMI is important for understanding the neuroanatomical changes in BD and the effects of psychiatric medications on the brain.</p

Principal component analysis as an efficient method for capturing multivariate brain signatures of complex disorders—ENIGMA study in people with bipolar disorders and obesity

Multivariate techniques better fit the anatomy of complex neuropsychiatric disorders which are characterized not by alterations in a single region, but rather by variations across distributed brain networks. Here, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to identify patterns of covariance across brain regions and relate them to clinical and demographic variables in a large generalizable dataset of individuals with bipolar disorders and controls. We then compared performance of PCA and clustering on identical sample to identify which methodology was better in capturing links between brain and clinical measures. Using data from the ENIGMA-BD working group, we investigated T1-weighted structural MRI data from 2436 participants with BD and healthy controls, and applied PCA to cortical thickness and surface area measures. We then studied the association of principal components with clinical and demographic variables using mixed regression models. We compared the PCA model with our prior clustering analyses of the same data and also tested it in a replication sample of 327 participants with BD or schizophrenia and healthy controls. The first principal component, which indexed a greater cortical thickness across all 68 cortical regions, was negatively associated with BD, BMI, antipsychotic medications, and age and was positively associated with Li treatment. PCA demonstrated superior goodness of fit to clustering when predicting diagnosis and BMI. Moreover, applying the PCA model to the replication sample yielded significant differences in cortical thickness between healthy controls and individuals with BD or schizophrenia. Cortical thickness in the same widespread regional network as determined by PCA was negatively associated with different clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. PCA outperformed clustering and provided an easy-to-use and interpret method to study multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables. Practitioner Points: In this study of 2770 Individuals, we confirmed that cortical thickness in widespread regional networks as determined by principal component analysis (PCA) was negatively associated with relevant clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. Significant associations of many different system-level variables with the same brain network suggest a lack of one-to-one mapping of individual clinical and demographic factors to specific patterns of brain changes. PCA outperformed clustering analysis in the same data set when predicting group or BMI, providing a superior method for studying multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables.</p

Principal component analysis as an efficient method for capturing multivariate brain signatures of complex disorders—ENIGMA study in people with bipolar disorders and obesity

Multivariate techniques better fit the anatomy of complex neuropsychiatric disorders which are characterized not by alterations in a single region, but rather by variations across distributed brain networks. Here, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to identify patterns of covariance across brain regions and relate them to clinical and demographic variables in a large generalizable dataset of individuals with bipolar disorders and controls. We then compared performance of PCA and clustering on identical sample to identify which methodology was better in capturing links between brain and clinical measures. Using data from the ENIGMA-BD working group, we investigated T1-weighted structural MRI data from 2436 participants with BD and healthy controls, and applied PCA to cortical thickness and surface area measures. We then studied the association of principal components with clinical and demographic variables using mixed regression models. We compared the PCA model with our prior clustering analyses of the same data and also tested it in a replication sample of 327 participants with BD or schizophrenia and healthy controls. The first principal component, which indexed a greater cortical thickness across all 68 cortical regions, was negatively associated with BD, BMI, antipsychotic medications, and age and was positively associated with Li treatment. PCA demonstrated superior goodness of fit to clustering when predicting diagnosis and BMI. Moreover, applying the PCA model to the replication sample yielded significant differences in cortical thickness between healthy controls and individuals with BD or schizophrenia. Cortical thickness in the same widespread regional network as determined by PCA was negatively associated with different clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. PCA outperformed clustering and provided an easy-to-use and interpret method to study multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables. Practitioner Points: In this study of 2770 Individuals, we confirmed that cortical thickness in widespread regional networks as determined by principal component analysis (PCA) was negatively associated with relevant clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. Significant associations of many different system-level variables with the same brain network suggest a lack of one-to-one mapping of individual clinical and demographic factors to specific patterns of brain changes. PCA outperformed clustering analysis in the same data set when predicting group or BMI, providing a superior method for studying multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables.</p

In vivo hippocampal subfield volumes in bipolar disorder—A mega-analysis from The Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis Bipolar Disorder Working Group

The hippocampus consists of anatomically and functionally distinct subfields that may be differentially involved in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder (BD). Here we, the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta‐Analysis Bipolar Disorder workinggroup, study hippocampal subfield volumetry in BD. T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans from 4,698 individuals (BD = 1,472, healthy controls [HC] = 3,226) from 23 sites worldwide were processed with FreeSurfer. We used linear mixed‐effects models and mega‐analysis to investigate differences in hippocampal subfield volumes between BD and HC, followed by analyses of clinical characteristics and medication use. BD showed significantly smaller volumes of the whole hippocampus (Cohen's d = −0.20), cornu ammonis (CA)1 (d = −0.18), CA2/3 (d = −0.11), CA4 (d = −0.19), molecular layer (d = −0.21), granule cell layer of dentate gyrus (d = −0.21), hippocampal tail (d = −0.10), subiculum (d = −0.15), presubiculum (d = −0.18), and hippocampal amygdala transition area (d = −0.17) compared to HC. Lithium users did not show volume differences compared to HC, while non‐users did. Antipsychotics or antiepileptic use was associated with smaller volumes. In this largest study of hippocampal subfields in BD to date, we show widespread reductions in nine of 12 subfields studied. The associations were modulated by medication use and specifically the lack of differences between lithium users and HC supports a possible protective role of lithium in BD

Principal component analysis as an efficient method for capturing multivariate brain signatures of complex disorders—ENIGMA study in people with bipolar disorders and obesity

Multivariate techniques better fit the anatomy of complex neuropsychiatric disorders which are characterized not by alterations in a single region, but rather by variations across distributed brain networks. Here, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to identify patterns of covariance across brain regions and relate them to clinical and demographic variables in a large generalizable dataset of individuals with bipolar disorders and controls. We then compared performance of PCA and clustering on identical sample to identify which methodology was better in capturing links between brain and clinical measures. Using data from the ENIGMA-BD working group, we investigated T1-weighted structural MRI data from 2436 participants with BD and healthy controls, and applied PCA to cortical thickness and surface area measures. We then studied the association of principal components with clinical and demographic variables using mixed regression models. We compared the PCA model with our prior clustering analyses of the same data and also tested it in a replication sample of 327 participants with BD or schizophrenia and healthy controls. The first principal component, which indexed a greater cortical thickness across all 68 cortical regions, was negatively associated with BD, BMI, antipsychotic medications, and age and was positively associated with Li treatment. PCA demonstrated superior goodness of fit to clustering when predicting diagnosis and BMI. Moreover, applying the PCA model to the replication sample yielded significant differences in cortical thickness between healthy controls and individuals with BD or schizophrenia. Cortical thickness in the same widespread regional network as determined by PCA was negatively associated with different clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. PCA outperformed clustering and provided an easy-to-use and interpret method to study multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables. Practitioner Points: In this study of 2770 Individuals, we confirmed that cortical thickness in widespread regional networks as determined by principal component analysis (PCA) was negatively associated with relevant clinical and demographic variables, including diagnosis, age, BMI, and treatment with antipsychotic medications or lithium. Significant associations of many different system-level variables with the same brain network suggest a lack of one-to-one mapping of individual clinical and demographic factors to specific patterns of brain changes. PCA outperformed clustering analysis in the same data set when predicting group or BMI, providing a superior method for studying multivariate associations between brain structure and system-level variables

A Nonlinear Simulation Framework Supports Adjusting for Age When Analyzing BrainAGE

Several imaging modalities, including T1-weighted structural imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional MRI can show chronological age related changes. Employing machine learning algorithms, an individual's imaging data can predict their age with reasonable accuracy. While details vary according to modality, the general strategy is to: (1) extract image-related features, (2) build a model on a training set that uses those features to predict an individual's age, (3) validate the model on a test dataset, producing a predicted age for each individual, (4) define the "Brain Age Gap Estimate" (BrainAGE) as the difference between an individual's predicted age and his/her chronological age, (5) estimate the relationship between BrainAGE and other variables of interest, and (6) make inferences about those variables and accelerated or delayed brain aging. For example, a group of individuals with overall positive BrainAGE may show signs of accelerated aging in other variables as well. There is inevitably an overestimation of the age of younger individuals and an underestimation of the age of older individuals due to "regression to the mean." The correlation between chronological age and BrainAGE may significantly impact the relationship between BrainAGE and other variables of interest when they are also related to age. In this study, we examine the detectability of variable effects under different assumptions. We use empirical results from two separate datasets [training = 475 healthy volunteers, aged 18-60 years (259 female); testing = 489 participants including people with mood/anxiety, substance use, eating disorders and healthy controls, aged 18-56 years (312 female)] to inform simulation parameter selection. Outcomes in simulated and empirical data strongly support the proposal that models incorporating BrainAGE should include chronological age as a covariate. We propose either including age as a covariate in step 5 of the above framework, or employing a multistep procedure where age is regressed on BrainAGE prior to step 5, producing BrainAGE Residualized (BrainAGER) scores