Associations of Baseline Clinical Phenotypes with Subsequent White Matter Hyperintensity Volume Change - A Study of 4329 UK Biobank Participants
Kancheva, A. K.; Millard, L.; Lyall, D. M.; Wardlaw, J.; Quinn, T. J.
Show abstract
Background and ObjectivesWhite matter hyperintensities (WMHs) relate to cognitive and physical impairment. Although WMHs typically increase/progress with time, regression/decreasing has also been observed. We tested which baseline clinical phenotypes predict subsequent WMH volume change in UK Biobank (UKB). MethodsWe included participants with total volume of WMHs at first brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and follow-up brain MRI. We assessed whether 107 pre-selected clinical phenotypes at baseline related to follow-up WMH volume change. We derived a measure of WMH change as the residual from a linear regression of follow-up WMH volume on baseline WMH volume. We pre-processed clinical phenotypes using PHESANT. We ran (i) linear regressions for continuous WMH change as the outcome and (ii) multinomial logistic regressions comparing progression, regression, and stable groups after categorising WMH volume change using a quintile-based approach. Models were unadjusted, partially adjusted (age, sex, total brain tissue volume, follow-up time), or fully adjusted (further adding blood pressure; BP). We corrected all P-values for multiple testing using false discovery rate (FDR) correction. ResultsWe included 4329 participants (median age=52; IQR=12), 54.6% female. Median follow-up was 2.3 years (range=1-7 years). On average, total brain volume decreased across follow-up (mean decrease=16,058 mm3) and WMH volume increased (median increase=293 mm3; both p<0.001). WMHs progressed in 53.9% of participants, regressed in 26.01%, and remained stable in 20%. Fully-adjusted associations with WMH increase included an increased risk of diabetes-related eye disease and higher diastolic BP (FDR-adjusted p<0.05). In group comparisons, progressors were older than regressors and stable individuals, on average. Regressors and progressors had higher BMI than the stable group. Regressors had the highest baseline WMH burden. In unadjusted models, progressors versus stable were more likely to have cataract and higher BP, while regressors had higher weight and systolic BP. These associations did not survive covariate adjustment. DiscussionWell-established vascular risk factors related to subsequent WMH volume change. Distinct clinical and demographic profiles characterized WMH progression, regression, and stable groups. Results suggest that vascular factors relate to WMH change but are sensitive to covariate control. Further studies should establish factors differentially related to WMH progression, regression, and stability.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Lesions in putative language and attention regions are linked to more severe strokes in patients with higher white matter hyperintensity burden 91%
- Association between lifestyle at different life periods and brain integrity in older adults 91%
- Regional distribution of anoxic brain injury after cardiac arrest: clinical and electrographic correlates 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatial distribution and cognitive impact of cerebrovascular risk-related white matter hyperintensities 94%
- Contribution of white matter hyperintensities to ventricular enlargement in older adults 94%
- Posterior white matter hyperintensities are associated with reduced medial temporal lobe subregional integrity and long-term memory in older adults 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cerebellar and subcortical atrophy contribute to psychiatric symptoms in frontotemporal dementia 94%
- Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes 92%
- Cardiometabolic risk factors associated with brain age and accelerate brain ageing 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.