An exploratory causal analysis of the relationships between the brain age gap and cardiovascular risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain age gap (BAG) has been shown to capture accelerated brain aging patterns and might serve as a biomarker for several neurological diseases. Moreover, it was also shown that it captures other biological information related to modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Previous studies have explored statistical relationships between the BAG and cardiovascular risk factors. However, none of those studies explored causal relationships between the BAG and cardiovascular risk factors. In this work, we employ causal structure discovery techniques and define a Bayesian network to model the assumed causal relationships between the BAG, estimated using morphometric T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging brain features from 2025 adults, and several cardiovascular risk factors. This setup allows us to not only assess observed conditional probability distributions of the BAG given cardiovascular risk factors, but also to isolate the causal effect of each cardiovascular risk factor on BAG using causal inference. Results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed causal analysis approach by illustrating intuitive causal relationships between variables. For example, body-mass-index, waist-to-hip ratio, smoking, and alcohol consumption were found to impact the BAG, with the greatest impact for obesity markers resulting in higher chances of developing accelerated brain aging. Moreover, the findings show that causal effects differ from correlational effects, demonstrating the importance of accounting for variable relationships and confounders when evaluating the information captured by a biomarker. Our work demonstrates the feasibility and advantages of using causal analyses instead of purely correlation-based and univariate statistical analyses in the context of brain aging and related problems.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".