ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Aging Neurosci.

Sec. Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior

Volume 17 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1472207

Predicting Brain Age for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injuries and Healthy Controls: An Exploratory Analysis

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Stanford University, Stanford, United States
  • 2VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Veterans Health Administration, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto, California, United States
  • 3University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • 4Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, United States
  • 5Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States
  • 6Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California, United States
  • 7The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 8School of Medicine, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with increased dementia risk. This may be driven by underlying biological changes resulting from the injury. Machine learning algorithms can use structural MRIs to give a predicted brain age (pBA). When the estimated age is greater than the chronological age (CA), this is called the brain age gap (BAg). We analyzed this outcome in men and women with and without TBI.Objective: To determine whether factors that contribute to BAg, as estimated using the brainageR algorithm, differ between men and women who are US military Veterans with and without TBI. Methods: In an exploratory, hypothesis-generating analysis, we analyzed data from 85 TBI patients and 22 healthy controls (HCs). High-resolution T1W images were processed using FreeSurfer 7.0. pBAs were calculated from T1s. Differences between the two groups were tested using the Mann-Whitney U. Associations between the BAg and other factors were tested using partial Pearson’s r within groups, controlling for CA, followed by construction of regression models. Results: After correcting for multiple comparisons, TBI patients and HCs differed on PCL score (higher for TBI patients) and cortical thickness (CT) in both hemispheres (higher for HCs). Among women TBI patients, BAg was correlated with pBA and hippocampal volume (HV), and among men TBI patients, BAg was correlated with pBA and CT. Among both men and women HCs, BAg was correlated only with CA. Four hierarchical regression models were constructed to predict BAg in each group, which controlled for CA and excluded pBA for multicollinearity. These models showed that HV predicted BAg among women with TBI, while CT predicted BAg among men with TBI, while only CA predicted BAg among HCs.Interpretation: These results offer tentative support to the view the factors associated with BAg among individuals with TBI differ from factors associated with BAg among HCs, and between men and women. Specifically, BAg among individuals with TBI is predicted by neuroanatomical factors, while among HCs it is predicted only by CA. This may reflect features of the algorithm, an underlying biological process, or both.

Keywords: Traumatic Brain Injury, chronic health symptoms, Aging, structural MRI, Brain age

Received: 30 Jul 2024; Accepted: 23 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Coetzee, Kang, Liou-Johnson, Luttenbacher, Seenivasan, Eshghi, Grewal, Shah, Hillary, Dennis and Adamson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: John Philip Coetzee, Stanford University, Stanford, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.