Estimating brain age from structural MRI and MEG data: Insights from dimensionality reduction techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain age prediction studies aim at reliably estimating the difference between the chronological age of an individual and their predicted age based on neuroimaging data, which has been proposed as an informative measure of disease and cognitive decline. As most previous studies relied exclusively on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, we hereby investigate whether combining structural MRI with functional magnetoencephalography (MEG) information improves age prediction using a large cohort of healthy subjects (N = 613, age 18-88 years) from the Cam-CAN repository. To this end, we examined the performance of dimensionality reduction and multivariate associative techniques, namely Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), to tackle the high dimensionality of neuroimaging data. Using MEG features (mean absolute error (MAE) of 9.60 years) yielded worse performance when compared to using MRI features (MAE of 5.33 years), but a stacking model combining both feature sets improved age prediction performance (MAE of 4.88 years). Furthermore, we found that PCA resulted in inferior performance, whereas CCA in conjunction with Gaussian process regression models yielded the best prediction performance. Notably, CCA allowed us to visualize the features that significantly contributed to brain age prediction. We found that MRI features from subcortical structures were more reliable age predictors than cortical features, and that spectral MEG measures were more reliable than connectivity metrics. Our results provide an insight into the underlying processes that are reflective of brain aging, yielding promise for the identification of reliable biomarkers of neurodegenerative diseases that emerge later during the lifespan.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".