2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117822
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating brain age from structural MRI and MEG data: Insights from dimensionality reduction techniques

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
32
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 119 publications
2
32
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, relative to the abundance of studies using structural MRI features, attempts employing functional measurements to predict brain age have been few. [16,17] This knowledge gap is surprising given that 1) growing evidence implies that changes in the brain's functional organization precede changes in anatomy; [18] 2) functional measurements have higher relevance to cognition and are more likely disrupted in developmental disorders. [19] Second, most studies concern more on improving prediction accuracy or testing the feasibility of brain age model in a cascade of psychiatric disorders than interpreting the predictive neuroimaging signatures, which can hamper gaining clinically and biologically meaningful insights into the underlying mechanisms involved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, relative to the abundance of studies using structural MRI features, attempts employing functional measurements to predict brain age have been few. [16,17] This knowledge gap is surprising given that 1) growing evidence implies that changes in the brain's functional organization precede changes in anatomy; [18] 2) functional measurements have higher relevance to cognition and are more likely disrupted in developmental disorders. [19] Second, most studies concern more on improving prediction accuracy or testing the feasibility of brain age model in a cascade of psychiatric disorders than interpreting the predictive neuroimaging signatures, which can hamper gaining clinically and biologically meaningful insights into the underlying mechanisms involved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The absorption and metabolism of drugs are commonly influenced by compound structural features, including MW, hydrogen bond donors or acceptors (HBDs or HBAs), and the number of rotatable bonds (RotBs). The features’ values can be considered individual variables and comprise a data set for each compound. Dimensionality reduction algorithms have been widely used to reduce the number of variables and extract the representative features. Principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant analysis (DA) are two popular dimensionality reduction approaches, which are unsupervised and supervised methods, respectively . PCA uses a multiple-feature extraction model, which may provide a good overview to use to interpret the data .…”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d 6 ): δ 7.48 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 7.03 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 3.18−3.14 (m, 4H), 2.89−2.74 (m, 4H). ESI [M + H] + (m/z): 231.10.4-(4-(4-(Trifluoromethyl)phenyl)piperazin-1-yl)but-2-yn-1-ol(34). General procedure B.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most prior brain age algorithms have used features derived from structural T 1 -weighted MR images ( Franke et al, 2010 ; Gaser et al, 2013 ; Valizadeh et al, 2017 ; Wang J. et al, 2019 ). Less commonly, studies have predicted brain age with diffusion-weighted MRI ( Mwangi et al, 2013 ; Tonnesen et al, 2020 ; Beck et al, 2021 ), functional MRI ( Liem et al, 2017 ), MR angiography ( Nam et al, 2020 ), FDG PET ( Goyal et al, 2019 ), EEG ( Sun et al, 2019 ; Paixao et al, 2020 ), or MEG ( Engemann et al, 2020 ; Xifra-Porxas et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%