A reusable benchmark of brain-age prediction from M/EEG resting-state signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population-level modeling can define quantitative measures of individual aging by applying machine learning to large volumes of brain images. These measures of brain age, obtained from the general population, helped characterize disease severity in neurological populations, improving estimates of diagnosis or prognosis. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) have the potential to further generalize this approach towards prevention and public health by enabling assessments of brain health at large scales in socioeconomically diverse environments. However, more research is needed to define methods that can handle the complexity and diversity of M/EEG signals across diverse real-world contexts. To catalyse this effort, here we propose reusable benchmarks of competing machine learning approaches for brain age modeling. We benchmarked popular classical machine learning pipelines and deep learning architectures previously used for pathology decoding or brain age estimation in 4 international M/EEG cohorts from diverse countries and cultural contexts, including recordings from more than 2500 participants. Our benchmarks were built on top of the M/EEG adaptations of the BIDS standard, providing tools that can be applied with minimal modification on any M/EEG dataset provided in the BIDS format. Our results suggest that, regardless of whether classical machine learning or deep learning was used, the highest performance was reached by pipelines and architectures involving spatially aware representations of the M/EEG signals, leading to R2 scores between 0.60-0.74. Hand-crafted features paired with random forest regression provided robust benchmarks even in situations in which other approaches failed. Taken together, this set of benchmarks, accompanied by open-source software and high-level Python scripts, can serve as a starting point and quantitative reference for future efforts at developing M/EEG-based measures of brain aging. The generality of the approach renders this benchmark reusable for other related objectives such as modeling specific cognitive variables or clinical endpoints.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".