Volume and Distribution of White Matter Hyperintensities in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis Patients ================================================================================================================ * Jennifer G. Cox * James H. Cole * Matthew J. Kempton * Steven C. R. Williams * Marius de Groot ## Abstract Brain white matter disruptions have been implicated in contributing to fatigue, brain fog and other central symptoms commonly reported in inflammatory diseases. In this study, we included 252 RA patients with 756 age and sex matched controls and 240 UC patients with 720 age and sex matched controls using the UK Biobank imaging dataset. We looked for differences in total volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) between patients compared to controls. Then, using voxelwise analysis, we explored the spatial distribution of these white matter hyperintensities and differences in these between patients and controls and between disease groups. A significantly higher volume of WMH was observed in both the RA (p = 2.0 x 10-8, β = - 0.36, 95% CI = -0.48, -0.23) and UC (p = 0.003, β = -0.19 95% CI = -0.32, -0.07) patients compared to their respective control groups. Voxelwise analysis revealed only a small cluster of RA associated WMH compared to controls. These results indicate an increased risk of white matter hyperintensities in patients with RA and UC. These findings help quantify the effect of inflammation from autoimmune diseases on cerebrovascular health and white matter integrity. Keywords * Autoimmune diseases * white matter hyperintensities * ulcerative colitis * rheumatoid arthritis * systemic inflammation * magnetic resonance imaging ## Introduction Fatigue is a prominent feature of autoimmune diseases and is a large area of focus in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ulcerative colitis (UC) research [1, 2]. There is an extensive body of previously published work exploring neuroimaging in these chronic inflammatory diseases looking to identify surrogate biomarkers of disease linked to fatigue [3]. Brain white matter disruptions in the form of changes to white matter microstructure and white matter lesions (WML) have been implicated in contributing to fatigue, brain fog and other central symptoms commonly reported in inflammatory diseases [4]. The presence of WML is strongly associated with atherosclerosis [5]. Vice versa, both RA and UC are associated with higher levels of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). Therefore, even when controlling for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, higher levels of accelerated atherosclerosis are seen in both these diseases and in other chronic inflammatory diseases. One of the primary theories on this increased risk is due to shared pathology between these diseases, including changes in the innate and adaptive immune systems resulting in systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction [5-8]. WMHs present as high signal intensity areas on T2-weighted or fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI sequences. They are indicative of changes in white matter fibers and tracts [9]. There are several studies that look specifically at brain white matter in both RA and UC [10, 11]. However, the literature around white matter hyperintensities has been conflicting. One of the earliest papers to look at WMHs in RA, Bekkelund et al., did not show a significant difference in WML load between RA patients and controls [12]. A more recent study was published by Vassilaki et al. using the Mayo clinic study of aging cohort that did report a significant difference in WMH volume in RA patients [13]. There are key analytical design differences between these two papers. The Bekkelund et al. paper analysed lesion count and the area of the largest identified lesion, whereas Vassilaki et al. measured total WML volume as a function of total intracranial volume (TIV). This more recent work provides a view of the total average lesion load in RA patients compared to controls. These mixed reports are further complicated by our lack of understanding of the role of these lesions in disease processes. There is a significant correlation between the presence of these lesions and age and can be seen in otherwise healthy populations [14, 15]. Conversely, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that these lesions can be linked to various different diseases and inflammatory processes and are associated with cognitive decline and increased risk of dementia [16-18]. The aims of this study were to determine if there were differences in the presentation of white matter hyperintensities between patients with RA compared to matched controls and patients with UC compared to matched controls in the UK Biobank population. As evidenced by the current published data there are different methods for analysing WMH load and distribution. There are various visual scoring methods (Fazekas, Scheltens scale and the Age-Related White Matter Changes scales) available [19-21]. It is also not uncommon to identify a primary lesion for comparison. However, in this study we have the benefit of a very standardised data set and so we chose to look at total lesion volume using binary lesion masks acquired using a fully automated, supervised-learning method of WMH identification. The primary analysis focused on the total volume of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) differences between groups with a follow-up analysis looking at differences in the distribution of these WMHs. Additionally, we looked to see if there was a difference in the distribution of these WMHs between these two diseases directly. ## Methods ### Study population This is a case control study utilising the UK Biobank dataset. The UK Biobank is a large, prospective observational study of 500,000 participants providing extensive biological information [22]. The imaging substudy is planned to scan 100,000 of those participants with a standardised scanning protocol including MRI of the brain. At the time of this investigation, brain MRI were available from 40,681 participants. For the purposes of the present study, we selected 1,968 individuals including patients with RA, UC and healthy controls. Due to the difference in age and sex distribution between RA and UC patient populations, separate control groups were matched to each patient population in a 1:3 patient:control ratio. Using the matchit algorithm in R, an exact matching strategy was employed for sex and a nearest neighbour matching strategy was utilised for age matching and selection of the control groups. A matching ratio of 1:3 was determined to be optimal as it allowed for the highest matching ratio and so statistical power, while utilising the matching strategy outlined above. For the initial analysis looking at total WMH volume, data from 252 individuals with a primary or secondary diagnosis of RA identified using International Clarification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes M05 or M06 were included in the RA patient group (mean age ± SD in RA = 65.52 ± 7.03, 71% female) with 756 age and sex matched controls (mean age ± SD in RA control group = 65.52 ± 7.02, 71% female). Data from 240 individuals with a primary or secondary diagnosis of UC identified using ICD-10 code K51 were included in the UC patient group (mean age ± SD in UC = 63.98 ± 7.06, 51% female) with 720 age and sex matched controls (mean age ± SD in UC control group = 63.98 ± 7.05, 51% female). For the follow-up analysis looking at distribution of WMH data from 207 individuals with a primary or secondary diagnosis of RA identified using International Clarification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes M05 or M06 were included in the RA patient group (mean age ± SD in RA = 65.82 ± 7.13, 70% female) with 207 age, sex and total volume of white matter hyperintensity IDP matched controls (mean age ± SD in RA control group = 67.47 ± 6.67, 69% female). Data from 211 individuals with a primary or secondary diagnosis of UC identified using ICD-10 code K51 were included in the UC patient group (mean age ± SD in UC = 64.31 ± 7.00, 51% female) with 211 age, sex and WMH IDP matched controls (mean age ± SD in UC control group = 64.50 ± 7.04, 47% female). These individuals are a subset of the subjects used for the total WMH volume analysis based on the availability of the lesion maps. Further detail on the lesion map availability can be found in the following section on data acquisition and processing. ### Data Acquisition and Processing Multi-modal MR images were acquired on Siemens Skyra 3T scanners running VD13A with a standard Siemens 32-channel RF receive head coil. The T1-weighted MRI used an MPRAGE sequence with 1-mm isotropic resolution, 256×256×208 matrix, T1/TR = 800/2,000 ms, R=2. The T2-weighted MRI was a structural FLAIR acquisition with 256x256x192 matrix, TI = 1,800 ms, TR= 5,000 ms, TE=395 ms, R=2 and elliptical k-space coverage. The T2-FLAIR image was linearly aligned to the T1-weighted image using FSL FLIRT [23, 24]. Lesion segmentation was automatically carried out using the BIANCA (Brain Intensity AbNormality Classification Algorithm) tool [25]. BIANCA is a fully automated method for white matter hyperintensity detection and classification based on the k-nearest neighbour algorithm. BIANCA classifies image voxels based on their intensity and spatial features. The result is a binary mask output image which represents the probability per voxel of being WMH. From this mask an imaging derived phenotype (IDP) is generated for each participant for total volume of WMHs. The output from BIANCA is a probability map of voxels to be classified as lesions. The interim step between this lesion identification and the total volume of WMH IDP is a binary lesion mask. To create a summary lesion map for the UC and RA patient populations these individual masks were first transformed from their native T1 space to standard MNI152 space. The individual warp coefficients were provided as part of the UK Biobank pre-processing pipeline. This file was then applied to the individual lesion masks. A summary image of all subjects within each patient population was created by concatenating all images as a time series. This 4D output image was then mean filtered to create a single average image for each patient and control population. As a next step to look at the distribution of these white matter hyperintensities by population, summary lesion maps for RA and UC along with their respective control groups were created from the binary lesion masks. The lesion segmentation analysis was not added to the analytical pipeline until January 2017. Scans acquired before this date were processed through the BIANCA pipeline and the summary IDP from that output has been provided. However, any subjects that were scanned and released prior to this date do not have a lesion mask available to download and patients scanned before this date were therefore excluded from the voxelwise analysis. Given this limitation to the lesion map availability the lesion distribution analysis was performed using a 1:1 matching strategy between the patient and control groups. The same control group that was originally sampled was used with an additional matching performed based on total volume of WMH IDP. Full details on the UK Biobank neuroimaging data are provided here: [https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/crystal/docs/brain\_mri.pdf](https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/crystal/docs/brain_mri.pdf) ### Statistical Analysis All statistical analyses were carried out using R version 4.1.1 and FSL version 6.0.5.2 ### Total Volume of WMH The initial analysis for this study compared total volume of white matter hyperintensities in each patient group to their respective matched control groups. Given the non-normal distribution of these volumes all analyses were done using the log transform of the ratio of total volume of white matter hyperintensities to total brain volume. Model one consisted of a linear model regression with sex, age and intracranial volume (ICV) as covariates. Hypertension is a known risk factor for the presence and burden of white matter hyperintensities in subcortical and periventricular regions of the brain [26, 27]. Given this association and the increased prevalence of hypertension in both the UC and RA patient populations, as reported in the demographics table below, a second model was run analysing total volume ratio of WMHs with hypertension as an additional covariate to sex, age and ICV. This is also in keeping with previously run analyses. To calculate effect sizes, we used the regression (β) coefficient. All two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. ### Voxelwise Analysis As a next step, voxelwise statistical analysis was performed using Randomise, FSL’s tool for nonparametric permutation-based testing [28]. The aim of this analysis was to explore differences in the spatial distribution of these white matter hyperintensities. Three separate two sample paired t-test analyses were performed: RA compared to controls, UC compared to controls and RA subjects compared to UC subjects. The analyses were run with 10,000 permutations. Given the difference in variable distributions between the groups all data was demeaned. The Threshold-Free Cluster Enhancement (TFCE) method was used and provided a test statistic to identify significant clusters. Utilising the atlasquery function in FSL the max and min coordinates for any clusters were run against two separate atlases, the Harvard-Oxford Subcortical Structural Atlas and the JHU ICBM-DTI-81 White-Matter Labels atlas [29-31]. ## Results ### Demographics Detailed demographic information can be found in Table 1. The control groups were matched directly on age and sex. Both control groups were generally comparable to their matched patient population except for rates of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. For the purposes of this analysis hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were defined based on the ICD-10 codes for these diseases. As this discrepancy was anticipated, we examined the role of hypertension in these diseases using a second model with hypertension as a covariate. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/T1) Table 1: Participant demographics ### Total white matter hyperintensity volume in RA and UC A significantly higher total volume of WMHswas observed in both the RA (p = 2.0 x 10-8, β = -0.36, 95% CI = -0.48, -0.23) and UC (p = 0.003, β = -0.19 95% CI = -0.32, -0.07) patients compared to their respective control groups. Given the non-normality of the data the linear model regression was run using the log transform of the ratio of total WMH volume to total brain volume. This allows for a normalisation on a group level and on an individual level given expected differences in individual total brain volume. The results for total volume of WMHs in RA can be found in Figure 2. The results for total volume of WMHs in UC can be found in Figure 3. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F1) Figure 2. Violin plot representing the log transformed ratio of the total volume of white matter hyperintensities to total brain volume in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as compared to a matched control group. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F2) Figure 3. Violin plot representing the log transformed total volume of white matter hyperintensities to total brain volume in patients with ulcerative colitis as compared to a matched control group. A second model was run including hypertension as a covariate. This was performed to account for any potential signal being attributable to the most prevalent cerebrovascular risk factor in these patient populations. This did account for some of the signal as evidenced by the difference in effect size between models 1 and 2. A similar magnitude of effect difference was seen in both RA and UC between the two models. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in both groups as compared to their controls even when accounting for hypertension. Full results can be found in Table 2 and Table 3. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/T2) Table 2: Linear model regression results of the log transform of the ratio of total volume of white matter hyperintensities to total brain volume in RA and UC with disease status, age, sex and ICV as covariates View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/T3) Table 3: Linear model regression results of the log transform of the ratio of total volume of white matter hyperintensities to total brain volume in RA and UC with disease status, age, sex, ICV, and hypertension as covariates ### Average lesion distribution mapsa To qualitatively observe the distribution of these lesions across the brain average lesion maps were created for both the RA and UC patient populations. A similar distribution of lesions was observed in both populations with WMHs being predominantly periventricular. Figure 4 below shows these average maps. ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F3) Figure 4. Average lesion maps representing lesion distribution in (a) RA patients (yellow) (b) UC patients (blue) thresholded from left to right at 5%, 50% and 70%. **Voxelwise statistical analysis of lesion distribution differences** Voxelwise analysis revealed no significant group differences between RA and UC subjects or between UC subjects compared to their WMH volume matched controls. There was a small but statistically significant cluster seen between RA subjects compared to their WMH volume matched controls. The Harvard-Oxford atlas returned a non-specific label of “Right Cerebral White Matter”. The JHU atlas returned two regions across the cluster, “Anterior corona radiata R” and “External capsule R”. The result of the threshold free cluster enhancement analysis highlighting this difference is shown below in Figure 5. ![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.30.24308189/F4) Figure 5: Threshold free cluster enhancement results from voxel wise analysis of RA subjects compared to age, sex and total volume of white matter hyperintensities matched controls. MNI coordinates 24 × 15 × 9. ## Discussion In the primary analysis, we found a significantly higher volume of WMHs in patients with RA compared to controls. This same result was seen in the UC population to a smaller degree. It’s important to keep in mind that this is a populational data set whereby subjects for inclusion in this analysis were identified using ICD-10 codes. While ICD-10 codes provide a standardized way of classifying diseases it’s well documented that the accuracy of the use of these codes in practice can vary dramatically [32]. Another limitation to this study is the lack of information on disease duration and severity. Both UC and RA are relapsing-remitting diseases and can vary widely in their individual presentation. Previously published data suggests that the age of onset can significantly affect disease severity [33]. How well controlled an individual’s disease is and on what medications may also have an important impact on these central effects which we are unable to quantify with this data set. As mentioned in the introduction, previous studies that have looked at white matter hyperintensity differences in both RA and UC report varying results. There were important differences in the analytical approach and in the study populations that may have contributed to this difference in results seen between the Bekkelund et al. paper and the Vassilaki et al paper introduced in the beginning [12, 13].Bekkelund et al. used a visual scoring system where the WMHs were identified and the area of the largest lesion was manually estimated as performed by a blinded radiologist, whereas Vassilaki et al used a semi-automated method for segmentation performed by a trained image analyst. In contrast, we used a fully automated segmentation method trained on a curated training dataset. While Bekkelund et al did look at overall total lesion count it did not account for total volume differences as it only looked at the area of the largest identified lesion. The subject population was also significantly smaller with a sample size of 33 patients and 48 controls. The patient population was younger with an average age of 45 and was only comprised of females. Both the Vassilaki et al. study and our current study had a close to 30% male patient and control population. This is in line with epidemiological estimates for gender distribution in RA [34]. This population was slightly younger, however, we reported similar findings to those found by Vassilaki et al. While the Vassilaki et al. study was larger than the Bekkelund et al. study, with a sample size of 104 subjects and used a similar 3:1 matching ratio it was still less than half the sample size of our subject groups which consisted of 250 RA subjects with 756 age and sex matched controls. Vassilaki et al. also looked at cognitive measures and dementia risk and despite the neuroimaging biomarker differences they did not see a significant difference in incident dementia. This was determined based on an extensive testing regimen of nine neuropsychological tests and then adjudicated by consensus between the study coordinator, physician and neuropsychologist. Around the same time as the Bekkelund et al. work a report from Geissler et al, came out that looked at lesion presence in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis subjects compared to controls and reported significantly higher incidence of lesions in both diseases. [35]. This was done from visual reporting alone and was a binary yes or no based on singular presence of WMLs. More recently, Zikou et al. showed a significant difference in the presence of WMHs in IBD patients (including both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis). As with the previous work done this was a small sample of only 18 subjects and was done based on visual counting of the WMHs. This study also found a significant difference in total WMH volume in UC subjects compared to matched controls. This work confirms what was found in these earlier studies but has the added benefit of being a much larger sample size of 240 UC subjects with 720 age and sex matched controls. Additionally, we used more quantitative analysis methods than those utilised in these previous studies. In the follow-up analysis we matched the control group based on the total white matter hyperintensity volume IDP to look at any differences in the distribution of these lesions. For the UC compared to controls we saw no significant difference in lesion distribution. The same was true when comparing between RA and UC patient groups. Overall, the lack of differences in these various analyses signifies that the increase in WMHs is most likely driven by increased cerebrovascular risk factors. The periventricular distribution of these lesions is in line with previous studies which show an association between the location of WML, periventricular white matter lesions (PVWML) or deep white matter lesions (DWML), and aetiology [36]. PVWML may be more hemodynamically determined and may be more heavily influenced by ischemic and cardiovascular risk factors [37]. There was a small, but significant cluster found in the corona radiata and external capsule in the RA patient population as compared to the control group. This is an area that has been studied extensively in the context of stroke, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and general cognitive decline [38]. Given the small size of this cluster it is important not to overstate the significance of this finding. However, this does align with previous epidemiological research showing increased risk of cerebrovascular incidents in RA [8, 39-41]. An increased risk of cerebral vascular disease (CVD) and complications such as stroke is well documented in both RA and UC [42-44]. Both this study, and the one conducted by Vassilaki et al., had patients and controls each with similar cardiovascular risk profiles and still found significant differences in these WMH volumes. This suggests that these findings are driven more from a combination of chronic inflammation from these diseases and/or medication toxicity given the known association between disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) and WMHs [45, 46]. There is not a large volume of literature looking specifically at WMH volume in these populations. To our knowledge, this is the largest dataset to date to look at WMH volume and distribution in both these diseases. These findings play a potentially important role in further understanding the extent of the effect of inflammation from autoimmune diseases on cerebrovascular health and white matter integrity. This is particularly relevant as we look to better understand the interplay between both disruptions in short-term cognition and cognitive decline and the link between these diseases and future neurodegenerative diseases [47, 48]. This highlights the importance of continued monitoring of cerebrovascular health in people with chronic autoimmune conditions. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript. ## Statements & Declarations ### Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. ### Ethics approval and consent to participate The UK Biobank has approval from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) as a Research Tissue Bank (RTB) approval. This research was done under the RTB approval and separate ethical clearance was not required. The UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council (EGC) was established as an independent guardian of the UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework (EGF). All participant materials, including the informed consent form, have been developed and are monitored under this framework. All data received from the UK Biobank is anonymised and additional consent for this research was not required. ### Competing Interests Jennifer Cox is an industry funded PhD student funded by GlaxoSmithKline and an employee of Johnson & Johnson. GSK and Johnson & Johnson had no role in the design or conduct of the study. Dr. de Groot is a former employee of, and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK had no role in the design or conduct of the study. Dr. Kempton was funded by an MRC Career Development Fellowship (grant MR/J008915/1). Dr. Williams has received research funding from Bionomics, Eli Lilly, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, the National Institute of Health Research, Pfizer, Takeda, and Wellcome Trust. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Wellcome Trust and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for the King’s Medical Engineering Centre and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests. ## Data Availability UK Biobank data are available through a procedure described at [https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research](https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research). All data was accessed under UK Biobank application number 40933. ## Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data analysis was performed by Jennifer Cox. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jennifer Cox and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ## Acknowledgements From the Department of Neuroimaging and the Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King’s College London * Received May 30, 2024. * Revision received May 30, 2024. * Accepted May 31, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Wolfe, F.H., DJ; Wilson K, The prevalence and meaning of fatigue in rheumatic disease. The Journal of Rheumatology, 1996. 23(8): p. 1407–1417. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8856621&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VB43100015&link_type=ISI) 2. 2.Regueiro, M., et al., Burden of Fatigue Among Patients with Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease: Results from a Global Survey of Patients and Gastroenterologists. Adv Ther, 2023. 40(2): p. 474–488. 3. 3.Goni, M., et al., Neural Indicators of Fatigue in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review of MRI Studies. Diagnostics (Basel), 2018. 8(3). 4. 4.Gertje, E.C., et al., Associations Between CSF Markers of Inflammation, White Matter Lesions, and Cognitive Decline in Individuals Without Dementia. Neurology, 2023. 100(17): p. e1812–e1824. 5. 5.Bots, M.L., et al., Cerebral white matter lesions and atherosclerosis in the Rotterdam Study. Lancet, 1993. 341(8855): p. 1232–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0140-6736(93)91144-B&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8098390&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LC49700002&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Feng, W., et al., Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. J Am Heart Assoc, 2017. 6(8). 7. 7.Szekanecz, Z. and A.E. Koch, Vascular involvement in rheumatic diseases: ‘vascular rheumatology’. Arthritis Res Ther, 2008. 10(5): p. 224. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/ar2515&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18947376&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 8. 8.Weissman, S., et al., Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in inflammatory bowel disease: The role of chronic inflammation. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol, 2020. 11(5): p. 104–113. 9. 9.Debette, S. and H.S. Markus, The clinical importance of white matter hyperintensities on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2010. 341: p. c3666. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDEvanVsMjZfMS9jMzY2NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzMxLzIwMjQuMDUuMzAuMjQzMDgxODkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 10. 10.Phukan, P., et al., Diffusion tensor imaging analysis of rheumatoid arthritis patients with neuropsychiatric features to determine the alteration of white matter integrity due to vascular events. Clin Rheumatol, 2022. 41(10): p. 3169–3177. 11. 11.Hou, J., et al., Alterations in brain white matter microstructural properties in patients with Crohn’s disease in remission. Sci Rep, 2020. 10(1): p. 2145. 12. 12.Bekkelund, S.I.P.-J. C.; Husby, G.; and Mellgren, S. I., Quantitative cerebral MR in rheumatoid arthritis. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 1995. 16(4): p. 767–772. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7611036&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QT33400024&link_type=ISI) 13. 13.Vassilaki, M., et al., Rheumatoid Arthritis, Cognitive Impairment, and Neuroimaging Biomarkers: Results from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. J Alzheimers Dis, 2022. 89(3): p. 943–954. 14. 14.Wharton, S.B., et al., Age-associated white matter lesions: the MRC Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Brain Pathol, 2015. 25(1): p. 35–43. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bpa.12219&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25521175&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 15. 15.Prins, N.D. and P. Scheltens, White matter hyperintensities, cognitive impairment and dementia: an update. Nat Rev Neurol, 2015. 11(3): p. 157–65. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrneurol.2015.10&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25686760&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 16. 16.Bolandzadeh, N., et al., The association between cognitive function and white matter lesion location in older adults: a systematic review. BMC Neurol, 2012. 12: p. 126. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2377-12-126&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23110387&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 17. 17.Kloppenborg, R.P., et al., Presence and progression of white matter hyperintensities and cognition: a meta-analysis. Neurology, 2014. 82(23): p. 2127–38. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0000000000000505&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24814849&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 18. 18.Moura, A.R., et al., The relationship between white matter hyperintensities and cognitive reference abilities across the life span. Neurobiol Aging, 2019. 83: p. 31–41. 19. 19.Fazekas, F., et al., Pathologic correlates of incidental MRI white matter signal hyperintensities. Neurology, 1993. 43(9): p. 1683–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.43.9.1683&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8414012&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 20. 20.Scheltens, P., et al., A semiquantative rating scale for the assessment of signal hyperintensities on magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol Sci, 1993. 114(1): p. 7–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0022-510X(93)90041-V&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8433101&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KG67200002&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Wahlund, L.O., et al., A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT. Stroke, 2001. 32(6): p. 1318–22. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjMyLzYvMTMxOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzMxLzIwMjQuMDUuMzAuMjQzMDgxODkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 22. 22.Karla L Miller, F.A.-A., Neal K Bangerter, David L Thomas, Essa Yacoub, Junqian Xu, Andreas J Bartsch, Saad Jbabdi, Stamatios N Sotiropoulos, Jesper L R Andersson, Ludovica Griffanti, Gwenaelle Douaud, Thomas W Okell, Peter Weale, Iulius Dragonu, Steve Garratt, Sarah Hudson, Rory Collins, Mark Jenkinson, Paul M Matthews, & Stephen M Smith, Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. nature neuroscience, 2016. 19(11). 23. 23.Jenkinson, M. and S. Smith, A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal, 2001. 5(2): p. 143–56. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1361-8415(01)00036-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11516708&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000169672400005&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Jenkinson, M., et al., Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage, 2002. 17(2): p. 825–41. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1053-8119(02)91132-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12377157&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178642000027&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Ludovica Griffanti, G.Z., Aamira Khan, Linxin Li, Guendalina Bonifacio, Vaanathi Sundaresan, Ursula G. Schulz, Wilhelm Kuker, Marco Battaglini, Peter M. Rothwell, Mark Jenkinson, BIANCA (Brain Intensity AbNormality Classification Algorithm): A new tool for automated segmentation of white matter hyperintensities. NeuroImage, 2016. 141: p. 191–205. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 26. 26.de Leeuw, F.E., et al., Hypertension and cerebral white matter lesions in a prospective cohort study. Brain, 2002. 125(Pt 4): p. 765–72. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/125.4.765&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11912110&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 27. 27.Liao, D., et al., Presence and severity of cerebral white matter lesions and hypertension, its treatment, and its control. The ARIC Study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Stroke, 1996. 27(12): p. 2262–70. 28. 28.Winkler, A.M., et al., Permutation inference for the general linear model. Neuroimage, 2014. 92(100): p. 381–97. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24530839&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000335713000035&link_type=ISI) 29. 29.Caviness, V.S., Jr.., et al., MRI-Based Topographic Parcellation of Human Neocortex: An Anatomically Specified Method with Estimate of Reliability. J Cogn Neurosci, 1996. 8(6): p. 566–87. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.566&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23961985&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996WF04200008&link_type=ISI) 30. 30.Mori, S., et al., Stereotaxic white matter atlas based on diffusion tensor imaging in an ICBM template. Neuroimage, 2008. 40(2): p. 570–582. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.035&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18255316&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254627700019&link_type=ISI) 31. 31.Desikan, R.S., et al., An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage, 2006. 31(3): p. 968–80. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16530430&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238358500003&link_type=ISI) 32. 32.O’Malley, K.J., et al., Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res, 2005. 40(5 Pt 2): p. 1620–39. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00444.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16178999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231908400005&link_type=ISI) 33. 33.Quezada, S.M. and R.K. Cross, Association of age at diagnosis and ulcerative colitis phenotype. Dig Dis Sci, 2012. 57(9): p. 2402–7. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22370916&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 34. 34.van Vollenhoven, R.F., Sex differences in rheumatoid arthritis: more than meets the eye. BMC Med, 2009. 7: p. 12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1741-7015-7-12&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19331649&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 35. 35.Geissler, A., et al., Focal white-matter lesions in brain of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet, 1995. 345(8954): p. 897–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90013-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7707814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QR06700013&link_type=ISI) 36. 36.Kim, K.W., J.R. MacFall, and M.E. Payne, Classification of White Matter Lesions on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Elderly Persons. Biological Psychiatry, 2008. 64(4): p. 273–280. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.024&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18471801&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 37. 37.Lazarus, R., R. Prettyman, and G. Cherryman, White matter lesions on magnetic resonance imaging and their relationship with vascular risk factors in memory clinic attenders. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2005. 20(3): p. 274–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/gps.1283&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15717341&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227871000010&link_type=ISI) 38. 38.Wang, J., et al., Structural changes in white matter lesion patients and their correlation with cognitive impairment. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2019. 15: p. 1355–1363. 39. 39.Kerola, A.M., S. Rollefstad, and A.G. Semb, Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Impact of Inflammation and Antirheumatic Treatment. Eur Cardiol, 2021. 16: p. e18. 40. 40.Ahmed, S., et al., Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Complex Challenge with Increased Atherosclerotic Risk. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2021. 15(1). 41. 41.Nasir, K., et al., Inflammatory bowel disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in U.S. adults-A population-level analysis in the national health interview survey. Am J Prev Cardiol, 2022. 9: p. 100316. 42. 42.Wiseman, S.J., S.H. Ralston, and J.M. Wardlaw, Cerebrovascular Disease in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Stroke, 2016. 47(4): p. 943–50. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQ3LzQvOTQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMzEvMjAyNC4wNS4zMC4yNDMwODE4OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 43. 43.Horta, E., et al., Prevalence of cerebrovascular accidents in patients with ulcerative colitis in a single academic health system. Sci Rep, 2022. 12(1): p. 18668. 44. 44.Chen, Y. and X. Wang, Increased risk of stroke among patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Brain Behav, 2021. 11(6): p. e02159. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 45. 45.van Halm, V.P., et al., Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a case control study. Arthritis Res Ther, 2006. 8(5): p. R151. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/ar2045&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16984661&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 46. 46.Low, A., et al., Inflammation and cerebral small vessel disease: A systematic review. Ageing Res Rev, 2019. 53: p. 100916. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arr.2019.100916&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F31%2F2024.05.30.24308189.atom) 47. 47.Kang, J., et al., Rheumatoid Arthritis and Risk of Parkinson Disease in Korea. JAMA Neurol, 2023. 80(6): p. 634–641. 48. 48.Xiao, X., et al., Comorbidity among inpatients with dementia: a preliminary cross-sectional study in West China. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2023. 35(3): p. 659–667.