BACKGROUND: White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) of presumed vascular origin are common in the elderly and are associated with vascular risk factors. There is evidence that vascular risk factors, in particular hypertension, are associated with WMH in particular locations of the white matter. However, it remains unclear whether this is true for all risk factors and whether signature WMH locations differ between risk factors. We aimed to identify WMH locations associated with vascular risk factors in community-dwelling individuals. METHODS: We pooled cross-sectional data from 16 population-based cohorts (15 653 individuals; mean age, 64.2±11.8 years; 52.2% female) through the Meta VCI Map Consortium. We quantified associations between WMH volumes in 50 white matter regions and 6 vascular risk factors using linear mixed models. Analyses were corrected for age, sex, study site, and total WMH volume. RESULTS: Hypertension (B=0.141; P<0.001), smoking (B=0.096; P<0.001), diabetes (B=0.059; P<0.001), and history of vascular disease (B=0.056; P=0.034) were significantly associated with higher total WMH volume, whereas obesity (B=0.023; P=0.139) and hypercholesterolemia (B=0.009; P=0.531) were not. After correcting for total WMH volume, hypertension was associated with WMH volume in 10 regions (ie, bilateral external capsule, superior longitudinal fasciculus, superior corona radiata, anterior limb of the internal capsule, left anterior corona radiata, and left superior fronto-occipital fasciculus), smoking (body corpus callosum), diabetes (genu corpus callosum), and obesity (left inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus), each with one region. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension has a signature WMH pattern, whereas associations between other vascular risk factors and regional WMH volumes seem to be mainly explained by a global increase in WMH rather than region-specific effects.

For the segmentation of magnetic resonance brain images into anatomical regions, numerous fully automated methods have been proposed and compared to reference segmentations obtained manually. However, systematic differences might exist between the resulting segmentations, depending on the segmentation method and underlying brain atlas. This potentially results in sensitivity differences to disease and can further complicate the comparison of individual patients to normative data. In this study, we aim to answer two research questions: 1) to what extent are methods interchangeable, as long as the same method is being used for computing normative volume distributions and patient-specific volumes? and 2) can different methods be used for computing normative volume distributions and assessing patient-specific volumes? To answer these questions, we compared volumes of six brain regions calculated by five state-of-the-art segmentation methods: Erasmus MC (EMC), FreeSurfer (FS), geodesic information flows (GIF), multi-atlas label propagation with expectation–maximization (MALP-EM), and model-based brain segmentation (MBS). We applied the methods on 988 non-demented (ND) subjects and computed the correlation (PCC-v) and absolute agreement (ICC-v) on the volumes. For most regions, the PCC-v was good ((Formula presented.)), indicating that volume differences between methods in ND subjects are mainly due to systematic differences. The ICC-v was generally lower, especially for the smaller regions, indicating that it is essential that the same method is used to generate normative and patient data. To evaluate the impact on single-subject analysis, we also applied the methods to 42 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In the case where the normative distributions and the patient-specific volumes were calculated by the same method, the patient’s distance to the normative distribution was assessed with the z-score. We determined the diagnostic value of this z-score, which showed to be consistent across methods. The absolute agreement on the AD patients’ z-scores was high for regions of thalamus and putamen. This is encouraging as it indicates that the studied methods are interchangeable for these regions. For regions such as the hippocampus, amygdala, caudate nucleus and accumbens, and globus pallidus, not all method combinations showed a high ICC-z. Whether two methods are indeed interchangeable should be confirmed for the specific application and dataset of interest.

Data-driven disease progression models have provided important insight into the timeline of brain changes in AD phenotypes. However, their utility in predicting the progression of pre-symptomatic AD in a population-based setting has not yet been investigated. In this study, we investigated if the disease timelines constructed in a case-controlled setting, with subjects stratified according to APOE status, are generalizable to a population-based cohort, and if progression along these disease timelines is predictive of AD. Seven volumetric biomarkers derived from structural MRI were considered. We estimated APOE-specific disease timelines of changes in these biomarkers using a recently proposed method called co-initialized discriminative event-based modeling (co-init DEBM). This method can also estimate a disease stage for new subjects by calculating their position along the disease timelines. The model was trained and cross-validated on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, and tested on the population-based Rotterdam Study (RS) cohort. We compared the diagnostic and prognostic value of the disease stage in the two cohorts. Furthermore, we investigated if the rate of change of disease stage in RS participants with longitudinal MRI data was predictive of AD. In ADNI, the estimated disease timeslines for ϵ4 non-carriers and carriers were found to be significantly different from one another (p<0.001). The estimate disease stage along the respective timelines distinguished AD subjects from controls with an AUC of 0.83 in both APOE ϵ4 non-carriers and carriers. In the RS cohort, we obtained an AUC of 0.83 and 0.85 in ϵ4 non-carriers and carriers, respectively. Progression along the disease timelines as estimated by the rate of change of disease stage showed a significant difference (p<0.005) for subjects with pre-symptomatic AD as compared to the general aging population in RS. It distinguished pre-symptomatic AD subjects with an AUC of 0.81 in APOE ϵ4 non-carriers and 0.88 in carriers, which was better than any individual volumetric biomarker, or its rate of change, could achieve. Our results suggest that co-init DEBM trained on case-controlled data is generalizable to a population-based cohort setting and that progression along the disease timelines is predictive of the development of AD in the general population. We expect that this approach can help to identify at-risk individuals from the general population for targeted clinical trials as well as to provide biomarker based objective assessment in such trials.

Brain imaging data are increasingly made publicly accessible, and volumetric imaging measures derived from population-based cohorts may serve as normative data for individual patient diagnostic assessment. Yet, these normative cohorts are usually not a perfect reflection of a patient's base population, nor are imaging parameters such as field strength or scanner type similar. In this proof of principle study, we assessed differences between reference curves of subcortical structure volumes of normal controls derived from two population-based studies and a case-control study. We assessed the impact of any differences on individual assessment of brain structure volumes. Percentile curves were fitted on the three healthy cohorts. Next, percentile values for these subcortical structures for individual patients from these three cohorts, 91 mild cognitive impairment and 95 Alzheimer's disease cases and patients from the Alzheimer Center, were calculated, based on the distributions of each of the three cohorts. Overall, we found that the subcortical volume normative data from these cohorts are highly interchangeable, suggesting more flexibility in clinical implementation.

With aging, the brain undergoes several structural changes. These changes reflect the normal aging process and are therefore not necessarily pathologic. In fact, better understanding of these normal changes is an important cornerstone to also disentangle pathologic changes. Several studies have investigated normal brain aging, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, and focused on a broad range of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers. This study aims to comprise the different aspects in brain aging, by performing a comprehensive longitudinal assessment of brain aging, providing trajectories of volumetric (global and lobar; subcortical and cortical), microstructural, and focal (presence of microbleeds, lacunar or cortical infarcts) brain imaging markers in aging and the sequence in which these markers change in aging. Trajectories were calculated on 10,755 MRI scans that were acquired between 2005 and 2016 among 5286 persons aged 45 years and older from the population-based Rotterdam Study. The average number of MRI scans per participant was 2 scans (ranging from 1 to 4 scans), with a mean interval between MRI scans of 3.3 years (ranging from 0.2 to 9.5 years) and an average follow-up time of 5.2 years (ranging from 0.3 to 9.8 years). We found that trajectories of the different volumetric, microstructural, and focal markers show nonlinear curves, with accelerating change with advancing age. We found earlier acceleration of change in global and lobar volumetric and microstructural markers in men compared with women. For subcortical and cortical volumes, results show a mix of more linear and nonlinear trajectories, either increasing, decreasing, or stable over age for the subcortical and cortical volume and thickness. Differences between men and women are visible in several parcellations; however, the direction of these differences is mixed. The presence of focal markers show a nonlinear increase with age, with men having a higher probability for cortical or lacunar infarcts. The data presented in this study provide insight into the normal aging process in the brain, and its variability.