Brain age in mood and psychotic disorders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether accelerated brain aging occurs in individuals with mood or psychotic disorders. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. A meta-analysis was then performed to assess neuroimaging-derived brain age gap in three independent groups: (1) schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis, (2) major depressive disorder, and (3) bipolar disorder. RESULTS: A total of 18 papers were included. The random-effects model meta-analysis showed a significantly increased neuroimaging-derived brain age gap relative to age-matched controls for the three major psychiatric disorders, with schizophrenia (3.08; 95%CI [2.32; 3.85]; p < 0.01) presenting the largest effect, followed by bipolar disorder (1.93; [0.53; 3.34]; p < 0.01) and major depressive disorder (1.12; [0.41; 1.83]; p < 0.01). The brain age gap was larger in older compared to younger individuals. CONCLUSION: Individuals with mood and psychotic disorders may undergo a process of accelerated brain aging reflected in patterns captured by neuroimaging data. The brain age gap tends to be more pronounced in older individuals, indicating a possible cumulative biological effect of illness burden.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".