Assessment of brain age in posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from the ENIGMA PTSD and brain age working groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with markers of accelerated aging. Estimates of brain age, compared to chronological age, may clarify the effects of PTSD on the brain and may inform treatment approaches targeting the neurobiology of aging in the context of PTSD. METHOD: Adult subjects (N = 2229; 56.2% male) aged 18-69 years (mean = 35.6, SD = 11.0) from 21 ENIGMA-PGC PTSD sites underwent T1-weighted brain structural magnetic resonance imaging, and PTSD assessment (PTSD+, n = 884). Previously trained voxel-wise (brainageR) and region-of-interest (BARACUS and PHOTON) machine learning pipelines were compared in a subset of control subjects (n = 386). Linear mixed effects models were conducted in the full sample (those with and without PTSD) to examine the effect of PTSD on brain predicted age difference (brain PAD; brain age - chronological age) controlling for chronological age, sex, and scan site. RESULTS: BrainageR most accurately predicted brain age in a subset (n = 386) of controls (brainageR: ICC = 0.71, R = 0.72, MAE = 5.68; PHOTON: ICC = 0.61, R = 0.62, MAE = 6.37; BARACUS: ICC = 0.47, R = 0.64, MAE = 8.80). Using brainageR, a three-way interaction revealed that young males with PTSD exhibited higher brain PAD relative to male controls in young and old age groups; old males with PTSD exhibited lower brain PAD compared to male controls of all ages. DISCUSSION: Differential impact of PTSD on brain PAD in younger versus older males may indicate a critical window when PTSD impacts brain aging, followed by age-related brain changes that are consonant with individuals without PTSD. Future longitudinal research is warranted to understand how PTSD impacts brain aging across 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".