Multimodal brain age estimates relate to Alzheimer disease biomarkers and cognition in early stages: a cross-sectional observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Estimates of “brain-predicted age” quantify apparent brain age compared to normative trajectories of neuroimaging features. The brain age gap (BAG) between predicted and chronological age is elevated in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), but has not been well explored in preclinical AD. Prior studies have typically modeled BAG with structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but more recently other modalities, including functional connectivity (FC) and multimodal MRI, have been explored. Methods We trained three models to predict age from FC, volumetric (Vol), or multimodal MRI (Vol+FC) in 390 control participants (18-89 years old). In independent samples of 144 older adult controls, 154 preclinical AD participants, and 154 cognitively impaired (CI; CDR > 0) participants, we tested relationships between BAG and AD biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, as well as a global cognitive composite. Results All models predicted age in the control training set, with the multimodal model outperforming the unimodal models. All three BAG estimates were significantly elevated in CI compared to controls. FC-BAG and Vol+FC-BAG were marginally reduced in preclinical AD participants compared to controls. In CI participants only, elevated Vol-BAG and Vol+FC-BAG were associated with more advanced AD pathology and lower cognitive performance. Conclusions Both FC-BAG and Vol-BAG are elevated in CI participants. However, FC and volumetric MRI also capture complementary signals. Specifically, FC-BAG may capture a unique biphasic response to preclinical AD pathology, while Vol-BAG may capture pathological progression and cognitive decline in the symptomatic stage. A multimodal age-prediction model captures these modality-specific patterns, and further, improves sensitivity to healthy age differences. Funding This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (P01-AG026276, P01-AG03991, P30-AG066444, 5-R01-AG052550, 5-R01-AG057680, 1-R01-AG067505, 1S10RR022984-01A1, U19-AG032438), the BrightFocus Foundation (A2022014F), and the Alzheimer’s Association (SG-20-690363-DIAN).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".