Predicting age from cortical structure across the lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite interindividual differences in cortical structure, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated a large degree of population-level consistency in age-related differences in brain morphology. This study assessed how accurately an individual's age could be predicted by estimates of cortical morphology, comparing a variety of structural measures, including thickness, gyrification and fractal dimensionality. Structural measures were calculated across up to seven different parcellation approaches, ranging from one region to 1000 regions. The age prediction framework was trained using morphological measures obtained from T1-weighted MRI volumes collected from multiple sites, yielding a training dataset of 1056 healthy adults, aged 18-97. Age predictions were calculated using a machine-learning approach that incorporated nonlinear differences over the lifespan. In two independent, held-out test samples, age predictions had a median error of 6-7 years. Age predictions were best when using a combination of cortical metrics, both thickness and fractal dimensionality. Overall, the results reveal that age-related differences in brain structure are systematic enough to enable reliable age prediction based on metrics of cortical morphology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".