Mega-analysis methods in ENIGMA: the experience of the generalized anxiety disorder working group

The ENIGMA group on Generalized Anxiety Disorder (ENIGMA‐Anxiety/GAD) is part of a broader effort to investigate anxiety disorders using imaging and genetic data across multiple sites worldwide. The group is actively conducting a mega‐analysis of a large number of brain structural scans. In this process, the group was confronted with many methodological challenges related to study planning and implementation, between‐country transfer of subject‐level data, quality control of a considerable amount of imaging data, and choices related to statistical methods and efficient use of resources. This report summarizes the background information and rationale for the various methodological decisions, as well as the approach taken to implement them. The goal is to document the approach and help guide other research groups working with large brain imaging data sets as they develop their own analytic pipelines for mega‐analyses

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

Verbal Learning and Memory Deficits across Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Insights from an ENIGMA Mega Analysis.

Deficits in memory performance have been linked to a wide range of neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. While many studies have assessed the memory impacts of individual conditions, this study considers a broader perspective by evaluating how memory recall is differentially associated with nine common neuropsychiatric conditions using data drawn from 55 international studies, aggregating 15,883 unique participants aged 15–90. The effects of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, stroke, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder on immediate, short-, and long-delay verbal learning and memory (VLM) scores were estimated relative to matched healthy individuals. Random forest models identified age, years of education, and site as important VLM covariates. A Bayesian harmonization approach was used to isolate and remove site effects. Regression estimated the adjusted association of each clinical group with VLM scores. Memory deficits were strongly associated with dementia and schizophrenia (p \u3c 0.001), while neither depression nor ADHD showed consistent associations with VLM scores (p \u3e 0.05). Differences associated with clinical conditions were larger for longer delayed recall duration items. By comparing VLM across clinical conditions, this study provides a foundation for enhanced diagnostic precision and offers new insights into disease management of comorbid disorders

Verbal Learning and Memory Deficits across Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Insights from an ENIGMA Mega Analysis

Deficits in memory performance have been linked to a wide range of neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. While many studies have assessed the memory impacts of individual conditions, this study considers a broader perspective by evaluating how memory recall is differentially associated with nine common neuropsychiatric conditions using data drawn from 55 international studies, aggregating 15,883 unique participants aged 15-90. The effects of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, Parkinson\u27s disease, traumatic brain injury, stroke, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder on immediate, short-, and long-delay verbal learning and memory (VLM) scores were estimated relative to matched healthy individuals. Random forest models identified age, years of education, and site as important VLM covariates. A Bayesian harmonization approach was used to isolate and remove site effects. Regression estimated the adjusted association of each clinical group with VLM scores. Memory deficits were strongly associated with dementia and schizophrenia

Verbal Learning and Memory Deficits across Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Insights from an ENIGMA Mega Analysis.

Deficits in memory performance have been linked to a wide range of neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. While many studies have assessed the memory impacts of individual conditions, this study considers a broader perspective by evaluating how memory recall is differentially associated with nine common neuropsychiatric conditions using data drawn from 55 international studies, aggregating 15,883 unique participants aged 15-90. The effects of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, stroke, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder on immediate, short-, and long-delay verbal learning and memory (VLM) scores were estimated relative to matched healthy individuals. Random forest models identified age, years of education, and site as important VLM covariates. A Bayesian harmonization approach was used to isolate and remove site effects. Regression estimated the adjusted association of each clinical group with VLM scores. Memory deficits were strongly associated with dementia and schizophrenia (p 0.05). Differences associated with clinical conditions were larger for longer delayed recall duration items. By comparing VLM across clinical conditions, this study provides a foundation for enhanced diagnostic precision and offers new insights into disease management of comorbid disorders

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/

Cortical and subcortical brain structure in generalized anxiety disorder: findings from 28 research sites in the ENIGMA-Anxiety Working Group

The goal of this study was to compare brain structure between individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and healthy controls. Previous studies have generated inconsistent findings, possibly due to small sample sizes, or clinical/analytic heterogeneity. To address these concerns, we combined data from 28 research sites worldwide through the ENIGMA-Anxiety Working Group, using a single, pre-registered mega-analysis. Structural magnetic resonance imaging data from children and adults (5–90 years) were processed using FreeSurfer. The main analysis included the regional and vertex-wise cortical thickness, cortical surface area, and subcortical volume as dependent variables, and GAD, age, age-squared, sex, and their interactions as independent variables. Nuisance variables included IQ, years of education, medication use, comorbidities, and global brain measures. The main analysis (1020 individuals with GAD and 2999 healthy controls) included random slopes per site and random intercepts per scanner. A secondary analysis (1112 individuals with GAD and 3282 healthy controls) included fixed slopes and random intercepts per scanner with the same variables. The main analysis showed no effect of GAD on brain structure, nor interactions involving GAD, age, or sex. The secondary analysis showed increased volume in the right ventral diencephalon in male individuals with GAD compared to male healthy controls, whereas female individuals with GAD did not differ from female healthy controls. This mega-analysis combining worldwide data showed that differences in brain structure related to GAD are small, possibly reflecting heterogeneity or those structural alterations are not a major component of its pathophysiology