Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a review of the characterization of healthy brain aging using MRI with an emphasis on morphology, lesions, and quantitative MR parameters. A scope review found 6612 articles encompassing the keywords “Brain Aging” and “Magnetic Resonance”; papers involving functional MRI or not involving imaging of healthy human brain aging were discarded, leaving 2246 articles. We first consider some of the biogerontological mechanisms of aging, and the consequences of aging in terms of cognition and onset of disease. Morphological changes with aging are reviewed for the whole brain, cerebral cortex, white matter, subcortical gray matter, and other individual structures. In general, volume and cortical thickness decline with age, beginning in mid‐life. Prevalent silent lesions such as white matter hyperintensities, microbleeds, and lacunar infarcts are also observed with increasing frequency. The literature regarding quantitative MR parameter changes includes T 1 , T 2 , T 2 *, magnetic susceptibility, spectroscopy, magnetization transfer, diffusion, and blood flow. We summarize the findings on how each of these parameters varies with aging. Finally, we examine how the aforementioned techniques have been used for age prediction. While relatively large in scope, we present a comprehensive review that should provide the reader with sound understanding of what MRI has been able to tell us about how the healthy brain ages.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".