Given the wide success of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) applied to natural images, researchers have begun to apply them to neuroimaging data. To date, however, exploration of novel CNN architectures tailored to neuroimaging data has been limited. Several recent works fail to leverage the 3D structure of the brain, instead treating the brain as a set of independent 2D slices. Approaches that do utilize 3D convolutions rely on architectures developed for object recognition tasks in natural 2D images. Such architectures make assumptions about the input that may not hold for neuroimaging. For example, existing architectures assume that patterns in the brain exhibit translation invariance. However, a pattern in the brain may have different meaning depending on where in the brain it is located. There is a need to explore novel architectures that are tailored to brain images. We present two simple modifications to existing CNN architectures based on brain image structure. Applied to the task of brain age prediction, our network achieves a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.4 years and trains 30 faster than a CNN baseline that achieves a MAE of 1.6 years. Our results suggest that lessons learned from developing models on natural images may not directly transfer to neuroimaging tasks. Instead, there remains a large space of unexplored questions regarding model development in this area, whose answers may differ from conventional wisdom.
Abstract Machine learning analysis of neuroimaging data can accurately predict chronological age in healthy people. Deviations from healthy brain ageing have been associated with cognitive impairment and disease. Here we sought to further establish the credentials of ‘brain-predicted age’ as a biomarker of individual differences in the brain ageing process, using a predictive modelling approach based on deep learning, and specifically convolutional neural networks (CNN), and applied to both pre-processed and raw T1-weighted MRI data. Firstly, we aimed to demonstrate the accuracy of CNN brain-predicted age using a large dataset of healthy adults (N = 2001). Next, we sought to establish the heritability of brain-predicted age using a sample of monozygotic and dizygotic female twins (N = 62). Thirdly, we examined the test-retest and multi-centre reliability of brain-predicted age using two samples (within-scanner N = 20; between-scanner N = 11). CNN brain-predicted ages were generated and compared to a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) approach, on all datasets. Input data were grey matter (GM) or white matter (WM) volumetric maps generated by Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) or raw data. CNN accurately predicted chronological age using GM (correlation between brain-predicted age and chronological age r = 0.96, mean absolute error [MAE] = 4.16 years) and raw (r = 0.94, MAE = 4.65 years) data. This was comparable to GPR brain-predicted age using GM data (r = 0.95, MAE = 4.66 years). Brain-predicted age was a heritable phenotype for all models and input data (h 2 ≥ 0.5). Brain-predicted age showed high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.90–0.99). Multi-centre reliability was more variable within high ICCs for GM (0.83–0.96) and poor-moderate levels for WM and raw data (0.51–0.77). Brain-predicted age represents an accurate, highly reliable and genetically-influenced phenotype, that has potential to be used as a biomarker of brain ageing. Moreover, age predictions can be accurately generated on raw T1-MRI data, substantially reducing computation time for novel data, bringing the process closer to giving real-time information on brain health in clinical settings.