Sex differences in predictors and regional patterns of brain age gap estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain-age-gap estimate (brainAGE) quantifies the difference between chronological age and age predicted by applying machine-learning models to neuroimaging data and is considered a biomarker of brain health. Understanding sex differences in brainAGE is a significant step toward precision medicine. Global and local brainAGE (G-brainAGE and L-brainAGE, respectively) were computed by applying machine learning algorithms to brain structural magnetic resonance imaging data from 1113 healthy young adults (54.45% females; age range: 22-37 years) participating in the Human Connectome Project. Sex differences were determined in G-brainAGE and L-brainAGE. Random forest regression was used to determine sex-specific associations between G-brainAGE and non-imaging measures pertaining to sociodemographic characteristics and mental, physical, and cognitive functions. L-brainAGE showed sex-specific differences; in females, compared to males, L-brainAGE was higher in the cerebellum and brainstem and lower in the prefrontal cortex and insula. Although sex differences in G-brainAGE were minimal, associations between G-brainAGE and non-imaging measures differed between sexes with the exception of poor sleep quality, which was common to both. While univariate relationships were small, the most important predictor of higher G-brainAGE was self-identification as non-white in males and systolic blood pressure in females. The results demonstrate the value of applying sex-specific analyses and machine learning methods to advance our understanding of sex-related differences in factors that influence the rate of brain aging and provide a foundation for targeted interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".