Back

External Validation of a Mathematical Model of Brain Health

Sadia, H.; Doyon, N.; Duchesne, S.

2026-09-03 neurology
10.64898/2026.09.01.26361929 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Understanding the mechanisms underlying brain aging and age-related pathological changes is essential for advancing brain health research. Our group previously developed a mechanistic mathematical model of healthy brain, Chamberland et al. (2024) that integrates key biological processes involved in normal aging, from which Alzheimer's disease (AD) related changes may emerge naturally. Objectives To characterize and validate this brain model by evaluating its sensitivity, calibrating its parameters, and assessing generalizability in independent populations. Methods The model represents the evolution of key biological processes associated with brain aging, including amyloid beta (A{beta}), tau pathologies, neuroinflammation, and neuronal death. After identifying the 30 most influential parameters, we calibrated the model using cognitively normal (CN) participants from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (n = 211) by minimizing a loss function composed of three outcomes (AB) plaques, tau tangles, and neuronal density). The calibrated model was then applied to the UK Biobank cohort (n = 35,899) of normal controls (aged 44-82 years). The effects of sex and APOE were evaluated using stratified simulations. Results Parameter calibration significantly reduced the prediction errors for A{beta} and tau. Neuronal density predictions showed strong agreement in the UK Biobank cohort. The variance decomposition identified APOE status as a major contributor to variability in A{beta}. Conclusion Our validated brain health model links mechanistic pathways with population data and reproduces neuronal density patterns in an independent cohort. These findings support its use as a framework for studying brain aging and investigating how Alzheimer's disease related pathological changes may emerge with aging.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.