Brain-predicted age difference score is related to specific cognitive functions: A multi-site replication analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brain-predicted age difference scores are calculated by subtracting chronological age from ‘brain’ age, which is estimated using neuroimaging data. Positive scores reflect accelerated ageing and are associated with increased mortality risk and poorer physical function. To date, however, the relationship between brain-predicted age difference scores and specific cognitive functions has not been systematically examined using appropriate statistical methods. First, applying machine learning to 1,359 T1-weighted MRI scans, we predicted the relationship between chronological age and voxel-wise grey matter data. This model was then applied to MRI data from three independent datasets, significantly predicting chronological age in each dataset: Dokuz Eylül University (n=175), the Cognitive Reserve/Reference Ability Neural Network study (n=380), and The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (n=487). Each independent dataset had rich neuropsychological data. Brain-predicted age difference scores were significantly negatively correlated with performance on measures of general cognitive status (two datasets); processing speed, visual attention, and cognitive flexibility (three datasets); visual attention and cognitive flexibility (two datasets); and semantic verbal fluency (two datasets). As such, there is firm evidence of correlations between increased brain-predicted age differences and reduced cognitive function in some domains that are implicated in cognitive ageing.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".