001     1022029
005     20240226075421.0
024 7 _ |a 10.34734/FZJ-2024-01166
|2 datacite_doi
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2024-01166
041 _ _ |a English
100 1 _ |a Antonopoulos, Georgios
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)180946
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
111 2 _ |a Helmholtz AI
|c Hamburg
|d 2023-06-12 - 2023-06-14
|w Germany
245 _ _ |a Stacking ensemble for age-prediction improves performance and privacy
260 _ _ |c 2023
336 7 _ |a Conference Paper
|0 33
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a INPROCEEDINGS
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a conferenceObject
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a CONFERENCE_POSTER
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Conference Poster
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Poster
|b poster
|m poster
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)24
|s 1706680423_12252
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
|x After Call
520 _ _ |a Brain-age prediction (BAP) using structural MRI has shown great potential for studying healthy aging anddisease. Two major desirable properties for BAP are high accuracy and data privacy. We propose astacking ensemble model (SEM) which improves both compared to current implementations.Our SEM consists of two levels (L0 and L1). At L0, we used an 873-parcel atlas to group gray-mattervolume voxels, and trained one GLMnet model for each parcel. The out-of-sample (OOS, using 3-fold cross-validation) predictions from all L0 models were used as features to train a GLMnet model at L1 whichprovides the final age-prediction. To make predictions on an independent test-set, L0 models were trainedon the whole dataset (Figure 1).We explored two different ways to train models at L0 and L1, i.e., i) using pooled data from different sites,and ii) treating each site separately and then averaging their outcomes. To compare with currentstandards we also tested models using average GMV in each parcel as inputs of L1. Additionally, to test thecase where enough data is available at the test site, we estimated L0-level OOS predictions on the testdata. These were then used to obtain predictions using L1 models. The former schemes provide differentlevels and types of privacy advantage. The latter provides an advantage for clinical applications, as onlyL0-level predictions need to be shared and not the raw data.We used T1w MRI scans of healthy subjects from 4 open datasets (IXI, eNKI, CamCAN and 1000Gehirne)with n>500 each (total N=3103, 18-90 age range). We performed leave-one-site-out analysis and testedthe impact of using one or more datasets for training.The highest test performance was observed for the set-ups with L0-level predictions coming from the testdata, with the best set up using pooled predictions of L0 from three sites to train the L1 model (MAE=4.7)followed by the L1 models trained on 3 sites separately (MAE=4.8). This set-up provides improved dataprivacy as L0 analysis can be performed at the application site and only predictions need to be shared.Set-ups based on mean GMV performed the worst (MAE=6.5-7.3). We also found that L0 models providerobust interpretation of regional aging effects, i.e. the Pearson correlation of real age with predicted-agewas higher than with GMV.
536 _ _ |a 5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253
|c POF4-525
|f POF IV
|x 0
536 _ _ |a 5251 - Multilevel Brain Organization and Variability (POF4-525)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251
|c POF4-525
|f POF IV
|x 1
700 1 _ |a More, Shammi
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)177823
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Raimondo, Federico
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)185083
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Patil, Kaustubh
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
|b 3
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022029/files/Poster_helmholtzAI2023.pdf
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022029/files/Poster_helmholtzAI2023.gif?subformat=icon
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-1440
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022029/files/Poster_helmholtzAI2023.jpg?subformat=icon-1440
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-180
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022029/files/Poster_helmholtzAI2023.jpg?subformat=icon-180
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-640
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022029/files/Poster_helmholtzAI2023.jpg?subformat=icon-640
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1022029
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)180946
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)180946
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)177823
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)177823
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)185083
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)185083
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)172843
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Natural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253
|x 0
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Natural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251
|x 1
914 1 _ |y 2023
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
920 _ _ |l yes
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
|k INM-7
|l Gehirn & Verhalten
|x 0
980 _ _ |a poster
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
980 1 _ |a FullTexts


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21