Brain-age in ultra-low-field MRI: How well does it work?

Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) Pub Date : 2026-09-15 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1162/IMAG.a.1352
Francesca Biondo, Carly Bennallick, Sophie A Martin, Lemuel Puglisi, Thomas C Booth, David A Wood, Juan Eugenio Iglesias, František Váša, James H Cole
{"title":"Brain-age in ultra-low-field MRI: How well does it work?","authors":"Francesca Biondo, Carly Bennallick, Sophie A Martin, Lemuel Puglisi, Thomas C Booth, David A Wood, Juan Eugenio Iglesias, František Váša, James H Cole","doi":"10.1162/IMAG.a.1352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brain-age estimates the brain's biological age from neuroimaging data and has been proposed as a biomarker of brain health and disease risk. While brain-age estimation commonly uses high-field (HF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ( <math><mrow><mo>></mo> <mn>1.5</mn></mrow> </math> T), this is costly and inaccessible, limiting its applicability. Emerging ultra-low-field (ULF) MRI ( <math><mrow><mo><</mo> <mn>0.1</mn></mrow> </math> T) is cheaper and more accessible, but its lower resolution may limit the reliability of biomarkers such as brain-age. We assessed different brain-age pipelines in 23 adults scanned on one HF system (GE Signa Premier at 3 T) and two identical ULF systems (Hyperfine Swoop at 64 mT) located at two different sites, hereafter referred to as ULF1 and ULF2. We used 14 distinct acquisitions defined by T1- or T2-weighting, resolution, and preprocessing: raw anisotropic orientations (axial, coronal, sagittal), isotropic scans, and super-resolution derivatives from multi-resolution registration (MRR) and SynthSR. These inputs (a total of <i>n</i> = 573 scans) were analyzed with five brain-age software packages (BrainageR, SynthBA, MIDI, DeepBrainNet, PyBrainAge). Performance evaluation entailed validity (brain-age vs. actual age), correspondence (ULF brain-age vs. HF brain-age) and test-retest reliability (ULF1 brain-age vs. ULF2 brain-age). Overall, results were mixed across pipelines, although several ULF pipelines performed comparably to HF. The four best-performing combinations were SynthBA on T2 scans without SynthSR, MIDI on T2 scans without SynthSR, PyBrainAge on T1 scans with SynthSR and using FreeSurfer recon-all-clinical, and BrainageR on T1 scans with SynthSR. These showed moderate-to-strong validity ( <math><mrow><mi>r</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.76</mn></mrow> </math> -0.92, <math> <mrow><msup><mi>R</mi> <mn>2</mn></msup> <mo> </mo> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.54</mn></mrow> </math> -0.64, Mean Absolute Error [MAE] <math><mrow><mo>=</mo> <mn>6.7</mn></mrow> </math> -8.21 years), moderate-to-strong correspondence to HF ( <math><mrow><mi>r</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.84</mn></mrow> </math> -0.93, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] <math><mrow><mo>=</mo> <mn>0.72</mn></mrow> </math> -0.92), and excellent test-retest reliability ( <math><mrow><mi>r</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.97</mn></mrow> </math> -0.99, ICC <math><mrow><mo>=</mo> <mn>0.97</mn></mrow> </math> -0.99). Moreover, some anisotropic acquisitions achieved comparable validity and reliability to MRR images when tested with the best-performing model, SynthBA ( <math> <mrow><msup><mi>R</mi> <mn>2</mn></msup> <mo> </mo> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.57</mn></mrow> </math> -0.62, ICC [CI] <math><mrow><mo>=</mo> <mn>0.99</mn></mrow> </math> [0.97-1.00], for coronal T2). This first systematic evaluation of brain-age at ULF demonstrates that accurate and reliable estimates can be achieved across multiple pipelines, without necessarily requiring image enhancement. Performance depended on the combination of model, scan type, and preprocessing. ULF brain-age estimation could be a practical and scalable tool for clinical decision-making, population research, and long-term patient monitoring, thereby helping to make advanced neuroimaging biomarkers more accessible worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":73341,"journal":{"name":"Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)","volume":"4 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13588316/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/IMAG.a.1352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Brain-age estimates the brain's biological age from neuroimaging data and has been proposed as a biomarker of brain health and disease risk. While brain-age estimation commonly uses high-field (HF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ( > 1.5 T), this is costly and inaccessible, limiting its applicability. Emerging ultra-low-field (ULF) MRI ( < 0.1 T) is cheaper and more accessible, but its lower resolution may limit the reliability of biomarkers such as brain-age. We assessed different brain-age pipelines in 23 adults scanned on one HF system (GE Signa Premier at 3 T) and two identical ULF systems (Hyperfine Swoop at 64 mT) located at two different sites, hereafter referred to as ULF1 and ULF2. We used 14 distinct acquisitions defined by T1- or T2-weighting, resolution, and preprocessing: raw anisotropic orientations (axial, coronal, sagittal), isotropic scans, and super-resolution derivatives from multi-resolution registration (MRR) and SynthSR. These inputs (a total of n = 573 scans) were analyzed with five brain-age software packages (BrainageR, SynthBA, MIDI, DeepBrainNet, PyBrainAge). Performance evaluation entailed validity (brain-age vs. actual age), correspondence (ULF brain-age vs. HF brain-age) and test-retest reliability (ULF1 brain-age vs. ULF2 brain-age). Overall, results were mixed across pipelines, although several ULF pipelines performed comparably to HF. The four best-performing combinations were SynthBA on T2 scans without SynthSR, MIDI on T2 scans without SynthSR, PyBrainAge on T1 scans with SynthSR and using FreeSurfer recon-all-clinical, and BrainageR on T1 scans with SynthSR. These showed moderate-to-strong validity ( r = 0.76 -0.92, R 2   = 0.54 -0.64, Mean Absolute Error [MAE] = 6.7 -8.21 years), moderate-to-strong correspondence to HF ( r = 0.84 -0.93, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = 0.72 -0.92), and excellent test-retest reliability ( r = 0.97 -0.99, ICC = 0.97 -0.99). Moreover, some anisotropic acquisitions achieved comparable validity and reliability to MRR images when tested with the best-performing model, SynthBA ( R 2   = 0.57 -0.62, ICC [CI] = 0.99 [0.97-1.00], for coronal T2). This first systematic evaluation of brain-age at ULF demonstrates that accurate and reliable estimates can be achieved across multiple pipelines, without necessarily requiring image enhancement. Performance depended on the combination of model, scan type, and preprocessing. ULF brain-age estimation could be a practical and scalable tool for clinical decision-making, population research, and long-term patient monitoring, thereby helping to make advanced neuroimaging biomarkers more accessible worldwide.

超低场核磁共振成像的脑龄研究:效果如何?
脑年龄通过神经成像数据估计大脑的生物年龄,并已被提议作为大脑健康和疾病风险的生物标志物。虽然脑年龄估计通常使用高场(HF)磁共振成像(MRI) (> 1.5 T),但这是昂贵且难以获得的,限制了其适用性。新兴的超低场(ULF) MRI (0.1 T)更便宜,更容易获得,但其较低的分辨率可能会限制诸如脑年龄等生物标志物的可靠性。我们评估了23名成年人在一个高频系统(3t时的GE Signa Premier)和两个相同的ULF系统(64 mT时的Hyperfine Swoop)上扫描的不同脑龄管道,这些系统位于两个不同的位置,以下称为ULF1和ULF2。我们使用了由T1或t2加权、分辨率和预处理定义的14种不同的采集数据:原始各向异性取向(轴向、冠状、矢状)、各向同性扫描以及多分辨率配准(MRR)和SynthSR的超分辨率导数。使用BrainageR、SynthBA、MIDI、DeepBrainNet、PyBrainAge等5个脑龄软件包对这些输入(共n = 573次扫描)进行分析。绩效评估包括效度(脑年龄vs实际年龄)、对应度(ULF脑年龄vs HF脑年龄)和重测信度(ULF1脑年龄vs ULF2脑年龄)。总体而言,尽管一些ULF管道的表现与HF相当,但不同管道的结果好坏参半。四种表现最好的组合是SynthBA在T2扫描时不使用SynthSR, MIDI在T2扫描时不使用SynthSR, PyBrainAge在T1扫描时使用SynthSR并使用FreeSurfer全临床扫描,BrainageR在T1扫描时使用SynthSR。结果显示中至强效度(r = 0.76 -0.92, r2 = 0.54 -0.64,平均绝对误差[MAE] = 6.7 -8.21年),与HF的中至强对应(r = 0.84 -0.93,类内相关系数[ICC] = 0.72 -0.92),良好的重测信度(r = 0.97 -0.99, ICC = 0.97 -0.99)。此外,当使用性能最好的模型SynthBA (r2 = 0.57 -0.62, ICC [CI] = 0.99[0.97-1.00])对冠状T2进行测试时,一些各向异性图像的有效性和可靠性与MRR图像相当。这是首个在ULF下对脑年龄进行的系统评估,表明可以跨多个管道实现准确可靠的估计,而不一定需要图像增强。性能取决于模型、扫描类型和预处理的组合。ULF脑年龄估计可能是临床决策、人口研究和长期患者监测的实用和可扩展的工具,从而有助于使全球更容易获得先进的神经成像生物标志物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书