How old are you? What about your body, and your brain? People are used to answering this question by counting the years since birth.
However, biological age could also be measured by looking at the integrity of the DNA in cells or by measuring the levels of proteins in the blood. Whether one goes by chronological age or biological age, each is simply an indicator of general health – but people with the same chronological age may have different biological ages, and vice versa.
There are different imaging techniques that can be used to study the brain. A method called MRI reveals the brain’s structure and the different types of tissue present, like white and grey matter. Functional MRIs (fMRIs for short) measure activity across different brain regions, while electrophysiology methods such as magnetoencephalography record electrical signals sent between neurons.
Electrophysiology
Distinct features measured by all three techniques – MRI, fMRI and electrophysiology – have been associated with aging. For example, differences between younger and older people have been observed in the proportion of grey to white matter, the communication between certain brain regions, and the intensity of neural activity.
MRIs, with their anatomical detail, remain the go-to for predicting the biological age of the brain. Patterns of neuronal activity captured by electrophysiology also provide information about how well the brain is working.
However, it remains unclear how electrophysiology could be combined with other brain imaging methods, like MRI and fMRI. Can data from these three techniques be combined to better predict brain age?
Better Prediction
Denis A Engemann, of the Department of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, and colleagues designed a computer algorithm stacking electrophysiology data on top of MRI and fMRI imaging to assess the benefit of this three-pronged approach compared to using MRI alone[1].
Brain scans from healthy people between 17 and 90 years old were used to build the computer model. The experiments showed that combining all three methods predicted brain age better.
The predictions also correlated with the cognitive fitness of individuals. People whose brains were predicted to be older than their years tended to complain about the quality of their sleep and scored worse on memory and speed-thinking tasks.
Crucially, Engemann et al. tested how the algorithm would hold up if some data were missing. This can happen in clinical practice where some tests are required but not others. Positively, prediction was maintained even with incomplete data, meaning this could be a useful clinical tool for characterizing the brain.
[1] Denis A Engemann, Oleh Kozynets, David Sabbagh, Guillaume Lemaître, Gael Varoquaux, Franziskus Liem, Alexandre Gramfort. Combining magnetoencephalography with magnetic resonance imaging enhances learning of surrogate-biomarkers. eLife 2020;9:e54055 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.54055
Last Updated on October 17, 2022