Investigating the temporal pattern of neuroimaging-based brain age estimation as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s Disease related neurodegeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Neuroimaging-based brain-age estimation via machine learning has emerged as an important new approach for studying brain aging. The difference between one’s estimated brain age and chronological age, the brain age gap (BAG), has been proposed as an Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) biomarker. However, most past studies on the BAG have been cross-sectional. Identifying how an individual’s BAG temporal pattern changes over time would enable improved prediction of clinical outcome based on neurophysiological changes and better understanding of AD progression. To fill this gap, our study conducted predictive modeling using large neuroimaging data with up to 8 years of follow-up to examine the temporal patterns of the BAG’s trajectory and how it varies by subject-level characteristics and disease status. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to take a longitudinal approach to investigate the pattern and rate of change in BAG over time in individuals who progress from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to clinical AD. Combining multimodal imaging data in a support vector regression model to estimate brain age yielded improved performance than single modality. Multilevel modeling results showed the BAG followed a linear increasing trajectory with a significantly faster rate in individuals with MCI who progressed to AD compared to cognitively normal or MCI individuals who did not progress. The dynamic changes in the BAG during AD progression were further moderated by gender and APOε4 carriership. Findings demonstrate the BAG as a potential biomarker for understanding individual specific temporal patterns related to AD progression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".