Brain Age in Early Stages of Bipolar Disorders or Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The greater presence of neurodevelopmental antecedants may differentiate schizophrenia from bipolar disorders (BD). Machine learning/pattern recognition allows us to estimate the biological age of the brain from structural magnetic resonance imaging scans (MRI). The discrepancy between brain and chronological age could contribute to early detection and differentiation of BD and schizophrenia. Methods: We estimated brain age in 2 studies focusing on early stages of schizophrenia or BD. In the first study, we recruited 43 participants with first episode of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (FES) and 43 controls. In the second study, we included 96 offspring of bipolar parents (48 unaffected, 48 affected) and 60 controls. We used relevance vector regression trained on an independent sample of 504 controls to estimate the brain age of study participants from structural MRI. We calculated the brain-age gap estimate (BrainAGE) score by subtracting the chronological age from the brain age. Results: Participants with FES had higher BrainAGE scores than controls (F(1, 83) = 8.79, corrected P = .008, Cohen's d = 0.64). Their brain age was on average 2.64 ± 4.15 years greater than their chronological age (matched t(42) = 4.36, P < .001). In contrast, participants at risk or in the early stages of BD showed comparable BrainAGE scores to controls (F(2,149) = 1.04, corrected P = .70, η2 = 0.01) and comparable brain and chronological age. Conclusions: Early stages of schizophrenia, but not early stages of BD, were associated with advanced BrainAGE scores. Participants with FES showed neurostructural alterations, which made their brains appear 2.64 years older than their chronological age. BrainAGE scores could aid in early differential diagnosis between BD and schizophrenia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".