Poster No:
132
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Phoebe Imms1, Owen M Vega1, Tamara Jafar1, Kien Nguyen1, Sophie Martin2, Haoqing Wang1, Siyu Chen1, Nikhil Chaudhari1, Nahian Chowdhury1, Andrei Irimia1
Institutions:
1University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 2University College London, London, London
First Author:
Phoebe Imms
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Co-Author(s):
Owen M Vega
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Tamara Jafar
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Kien Nguyen
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Haoqing Wang
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Siyu Chen
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Introduction:
Brain aging involves complex neuroanatomic deteriorations that are not well captured by basic morphometrics. Deep learning estimation of brain age (BA) offers a powerful alternative by detecting metrics that are unapparent to the human eye without extensive manual pre-processing (1). The discrepancy between BA and chronological age (CA), termed the age gap (AG), represents cumulative neuroanatomical aging (2). Local AG, the difference between BA and CA in specific brain regions, offers regionally interpretable insights into neuroanatomical aging.
Methods:
We validate local age gaps' (AGs) capacity to spatiotemporally map Alzheimer's disease (AD) neurodegeneration. Participants are 1,320 persons with ('converters', mean age = 75.72 ± 7.63 yrs) and without ('non-converters', mean age = 75.61 ± 7.51 yrs) CI in their future, and those already with CI at study inception ('pre-converters', mean age = 75.68 ± 7.56 yrs). Subjects are age and sex matched, with 440 subjects, 42.0% female, in each group. We compare group-level differences in global AG to differences in brain volume (BV). Additionally, we compare local AG across short-term (ST, 0.5 to 2.5 yrs), mid-term (MT, 2.5 to 6 yrs), and long-term (> 6 yrs) converters. Correlations between local AGs and time to conversion are compared to correlations between local brain volumes and time to conversion.
Results:
Global AG (but not BV) was significantly lower in non-converters compared to short-term (ST) converters (mean difference = -2.08 yrs, p = 0.02) and to mid-term MT converters (mean difference = -2.14 yrs, p = 0.02). Mean local AGs were significantly lower in long-term (LT) converters (mean ± SD = 0.05 ± 0.95) compared to MT (mean = 1.65 ± 1.02, p < 0.001) and ST converters (mean = 1.58 ± 0.99, p < 0.001). Cortical maps revealed that local AGs recapitulate known neuropathology propagation patterns throughout the cortex (Fig 1). Deviant aging begins in the temporal lobe (e.g., left pole = 1.9 yrs, right pole = 2.3 yrs) and orbitofrontal cortex (e.g., left subcallosal gyri= 2.02 yrs, right subcallosal gyri = 2.20 yrs) in LT converters and propagates to the anterior cingulate cortex, and to the lateral temporal and frontal lobes in MT and ST converters. Finally, almost all local AGs (but only few BVs) significantly correlate with time to conversion, with strongest correlations observed in the right putamen (r = -0.24, p < 0.001) and right orbital and insular regions.

Conclusions:
Our findings challenge the assumption that T1w MRIs cannot reveal temporal dynamics of neurodegeneration. Local AG maps align with amyloid and tau propagation proposed by Braak staging (3, 4) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging (5), underscoring their utility in identifying individuals at risk and predicting the timing of cognitive decline. This study advances efforts to identify converters for early intervention and to estimate time to conversion using non-invasive neuroimaging biomarkers.
Disorders of the Nervous System:
Neurodegenerative/ Late Life (eg. Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s) 1
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
Other Methods 2
Keywords:
Aging
Machine Learning
MRI
Other - brain age
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
I accept
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information.
Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
I do not want to participate in the reproducibility challenge.
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Other
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Patients
Was this research conducted in the United States?
Yes
Are you Internal Review Board (IRB) certified?
Please note: Failure to have IRB, if applicable will lead to automatic rejection of abstract.
Yes, I have IRB or AUCC approval
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel?
NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Yes
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel?
NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Not applicable
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Structural MRI
For human MRI, what field strength scanner do you use?
3.0T
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
Free Surfer
Provide references using APA citation style.
(1) Beheshti, I., Ganaie, M., Paliwal, V., Rastogi, A., Razzak, I., & Tanveer, M. (2021). Predicting brain age using machine learning algorithms: A comprehensive evaluation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(4), 1432-1440. https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2021.3083187
(2) Yin, C., Imms, P., Cheng, M., Amgalan, A., Chowdhury, N. F., Massett, R. J., . . . Bogdan, P. (2023). Anatomically interpretable deep learning of brain age captures domain-specific cognitive impairment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(2), e2214634120.
(3) Braak, H., & Braak, E. (1991). Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta neuropathologica, 82(4), 239-259.
(4) Braak, H., & Braak, E. (1996). Development of Alzheimer-related neurofibrillary changes in the neocortex inversely recapitulates cortical myelogenesis. Acta neuropathologica, 92, 197-201.
(5) Sepulcre, J., Grothe, M. J., d’Oleire Uquillas, F., Ortiz-Terán, L., Diez, I., Yang, H.-S., . . . El-Fakhri, G. (2018). Neurogenetic contributions to amyloid beta and tau spreading in the human cortex. Nature Medicine, 24(12), 1910-1918. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6518398/pdf/nihms-1027665.pdf
No