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 (h2 ≥ 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.

Objective Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are drugs used to suppress gastric acid production and treat GI disorders such as peptic ulcers and gastro-oesophageal reflux. They have been considered low risk, have been widely adopted, and are often over-prescribed. Recent studies have identified an increased risk of enteric and other infections with their use. Small studies have identified possible associations between PPI use and GI microbiota, but this has yet to be carried out on a large population-based cohort. Design We investigated the association between PPI usage and the gut microbiome using 16S ribosomal RNA amplification from faecal samples of 1827 healthy twins, replicating results within unpublished data from an interventional study. Results We identified a significantly lower abundance in gut commensals and lower microbial diversity in PPI users, with an associated significant increase in the abundance of oral and upper GI tract commensals. In particular, significant increases were observed in Streptococcaceae. These associations were replicated in an independent interventional study and in a paired analysis between 70 monozygotic twin pairs who were discordant for PPI use. We propose that the observed changes result from the removal of the low pH barrier between upper GI tract bacteria and the lower gut. Conclusions Our findings describe a significant impact of PPIs on the gut microbiome and should caution over-use of PPIs, and warrant further investigation into the mechanisms and their clinical consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines show excellent efficacy in clinical trials and effectiveness in real-world data, but some people still become infected with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination. This study aimed to identify risk factors for post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe the characteristics of post-vaccination illness. This prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study used self-reported data (eg, on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, and COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations) from UK-based, adult (≥18 years) users of the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app. For the risk factor analysis, cases had received a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021; had either a positive COVID-19 test at least 14 days after their first vaccination (but before their second; cases 1) or a positive test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (cases 2); and had no positive test before vaccination. Two control groups were selected (who also had not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before vaccination): users reporting a negative test at least 14 days after their first vaccination but before their second (controls 1) and users reporting a negative test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (controls 2). Controls 1 and controls 2 were matched (1:1) with cases 1 and cases 2, respectively, by the date of the post-vaccination test, health-care worker status, and sex. In the disease profile analysis, we sub-selected participants from cases 1 and cases 2 who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 3 and cases 4, respectively). Controls 3 and controls 4 were unvaccinated participants reporting a positive SARS-CoV-2 test who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after the test, and were matched (1:1) with cases 3 and 4, respectively, by the date of the positive test, health-care worker status, sex, body-mass index (BMI), and age. We used univariate logistic regression models (adjusted for age, BMI, and sex) to analyse the associations between risk factors and post-vaccination infection, and the associations of individual symptoms, overall disease duration, and disease severity with vaccination status. Between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021, 1 240 009 COVID Symptom Study app users reported a first vaccine dose, of whom 6030 (0·5%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 1), and 971 504 reported a second dose, of whom 2370 (0·2%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 2). In the risk factor analysis, frailty was associated with post-vaccination infection in older adults (≥60 years) after their first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1·93, 95% CI 1·50–2·48; p<0·0001), and individuals living in highly deprived areas had increased odds of post-vaccination infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·01–1·23; p=0·039). Individuals without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m²) had lower odds of infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75–0·94; p=0·0030). For the disease profile analysis, 3825 users from cases 1 were included in cases 3 and 906 users from cases 2 were included in cases 4. Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose. Almost all symptoms were reported less frequently in infected vaccinated individuals than in infected unvaccinated individuals, and vaccinated participants were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older. To minimise SARS-CoV-2 infection, at-risk populations must be targeted in efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness and infection control measures. Our findings might support caution around relaxing physical distancing and other personal protective measures in the post-vaccination era, particularly around frail older adults and individuals living in more deprived areas, even if these individuals are vaccinated, and might have implications for strategies such as booster vaccinations. ZOE, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the UK National Institute for Health Research, the UK Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer's Society.