The relationship between brain‐age association and prediction: The impact of parameter selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Association and prediction studies of brain age target the relationships between neuroanatomical changes across lifespan and behavioural or pathological phenotypes. However, the relationship between the two analyses has not been directly examined. Here we use brain resels (i.e. resolution elements) (Worsley et al. 1996) to directly compare age association and brain‐age prediction as a function of cortical thickness smoothing and parcellation parameters. Method Data included 608 healthy subjects (Age = 53.5218.07; Age range = 18‐88, 308 Female subjects) subjects with T1‐weighted MRI from the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (https://www.cam‐can.org/index.php?content=dataset). CIVET pipeline (http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/ServicesSoftware/CIVET) was used to extract cortical surfaces and calculate cortical thickness across the brain. We used 6 different diffusion based smoothing kernels (0, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mm) and 5 different parcellation levels: 100, 200, 400, and 1000 parcels from Schaefer et al., 2018 multi‐level functional parcellation atlas as well as the entire cortex. For each level of smoothing and parcellation, age‐related correlations were calculated. Brain age was predicted using a linear regression model with 10‐fold cross validation, with principal components of cortical thickness data as predictors. To directly compare the correlation and prediction results, we calculated the brain resels for each smoothing parcellation parameter. Result Figure 1.A shows the correlation patterns across the brain as a function of smoothing and parcellation. Figure 2 shows age prediction error as a function of smoothing kernel, parcellation level, and number of principal components included. Larger smoothing kernels and brain parcels result in higher correlation values (Figure 1.B), but lower prediction accuracy (Figure 2). Figures 3.A and 3.B show mean age‐correlation value and age‐prediction error as a function of number of resels. Conclusion Our results demonstrate an opposite relationship between brain‐age association values and brain‐age prediction accuracy, and quantify how smoothing and parcellation parameters affect each of these analyses. These results highlight the importance of parameter selection for each analysis type and how they might affect the final results, and have significant implications for brain aging studies.
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 | 0.073 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".