ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Investigating the impact of motion in the scanner on brain age predictions.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- The moderating role of psychological resilience on brain aging and PTSD in a community sample of South African women.Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Individualized Mapping of Functional Brain Networks in Older Adulthood.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Individual identifiability following Procrustes alignment of functional gradients: effect of subspace dimensionality.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Prediction of brain age using structural magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of clinical utility of publicly available software packages.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Ultra-fast MRI for brain-age prediction in a real-world cognitive disorders clinic.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Quantifying brain atrophy in Frontotemporal Dementia: a head-to-head comparison of neuroimaging techniques.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Regional brain aging patterns reveal disease-specific pathways of neurodegeneration.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- When Age Is More Than a Number: Acceleration of Brain Aging in Neurodegenerative Diseases.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Distinct Longitudinal Clinical-Neuroanatomical Trajectories in Parkinson's Disease Clinical Subtypes: Insight toward Precision Medicine.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Article
- Brain Age Prediction: Deep Models Need a Hand to Generalize.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Assessing the association between ADHD and brain maturation in late childhood and emotion regulation in early adolescence.Translational psychiatry · 2025Article
- Disentangling the effect of sex from brain size on brain organization and cognitive functioning.GeroScience · 2025Article
- A review of artificial intelligence-based brain age estimation and its applications for related diseases.Briefings in functional genomics · 2025Review
- Apathy progression is associated with brain atrophy and white matter damage in Parkinson's disease.Brain communications · 2025Article
- BrainAgeNeXt: Advancing brain age modeling for individuals with multiple sclerosis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- FreeSurfer version-shuffling can enhance brain age predictions.Neuroimage. Reports · 2024Article
- Brain age as a biomarker for pathological versus healthy ageing - a REMEMBER study.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2024Article
- Individualized mapping of functional brain networks in older adulthood.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain Age Gap (BAG) is defined as the difference between the brain's predicted age and the chronological age of an individual. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based BAG can quantify acceleration of brain aging, and is used to infer brain health as aging and disease interact. Motion in the scanner is a common occurrence that can affect the acquired MRI data and act as a major confound in the derived models. As such, age-related changes in head motion may impact the observed age-related differences. However, the relationship between head motion and BAG as estimated by structural MRI has not been systematically examined. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of motion on voxel-based morphometry (VBM) based BAG. Data were obtained from two sources: i) T1-weighted (T1w) MRIs from the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (CamCAN) were used to train the brain age prediction model, and ii) T1w MRIs from the Movement-related artifacts (MR-ART) dataset were used to assess the impact of motion on BAG. MR-ART includes one motion-free and two motion-affected (one low and one high) 3D T1w MRIs. We also visually rated the motion levels of the MR-ART MRIs from 0 to 5, with 0 meaning no motion and 5 high motion levels. All images were pre-processed through a standard VBM pipeline. GM density across cortical and subcortical regions were then used to train the brain age prediction model and assess the relationship between BAG and MRI motion. Principal component analysis was used to perform dimension reduction and extract the VBM-based features. BAG was estimated by regressing out the portion of delta age explained by chronological age. Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between BAG and motion session as well as motion severity, including participant IDs as random effects. We repeated the same analysis using cortical thickness based on FreeSurfer 7.4.1 and to compare the results for volumetric versus surface-based measures of brain morphometry. In contrast with the session with no induced motion, predicted delta age was significantly higher for high motion sessions 2.35 years (t = 5.17, p < 0.0001), with marginal effect for low motion sessions 0.95 years (t = 2.11, p = 0.035) for VBM analysis as well as 3.46 years (t = 11.45, p < 0.0001) for high motion and 2.28 years (t = 7.54, p < 0.0001) for low motion based on cortical thickness. In addition, delta age was significantly associated with motion severity as evaluated by visual rating 0.45 years per rating level (t = 4.59, p < 0.0001) for VBM analysis and 0.83 years per motion level (t = 12.89, p < 0.0001) for cortical thickness analysis. Motion in the scanner can significantly impact brain age estimates, and needs to be accounted for as a confound, particularly when studying populations that are known to have higher levels of motion in the scanner. These results have significant implications for brain age studies in aging and neurodegeneration. Based on these findings, we recommend assessment and inclusion of visual motion ratings in such studies. In cases that the visual rating proves prohibitive, we recommend the inclusion of normalized Euler number from FreeSurfer as defined in the manuscript as a covariate in the models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.