Asymmetric generalizability of multimodal brain‐behavior associations across age‐groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning methods have increasingly been used to map out brain-behavior associations (BBA), and to predict out-of-scanner behavior of unseen subjects. Given the brain changes that occur in the context of aging, the accuracy of these predictions is likely to depend on how similar the training and testing data sets are in terms of age. To this end, we examined how well BBAs derived from an age-group generalize to other age-groups. We partitioned the CAM-CAN data set (N = 550) into the young, middle, and old age-groups, then used the young and old age-groups to construct prediction models for 11 behavioral outcomes using multimodal neuroimaging features (i.e., structural and resting-state functional connectivity, and gray matter volume/cortical thickness). These models were then applied to all three age-groups to predict their behavioral scores. When the young-derived models were used, a graded pattern of age-generalization was generally observed across most behavioral outcomes-predictions are the most accurate in the young subjects in the testing data set, followed by the middle and then old-aged subjects. Conversely, when the old-derived models were used, the disparity in the predictive accuracy across age-groups was mostly negligible. These findings hold across different imaging modalities. These results suggest the asymmetric age-generalization of BBAs-old-derived BBAs generalized well to all age-groups, however young-derived BBAs generalized poorly beyond their own age-group.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".