Brain-age prediction: a systematic comparison of machine learning workflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The difference between age predicted using anatomical brain scans and chronological age, i.e., the brain-age delta, provides a proxy for atypical aging. Various data representations and machine learning (ML) algorithms have been used for brain-age estimation. However, how these choices compare on performance criteria important for real-world applications, such as; (1) within-site accuracy, (2) cross-site generalization, (3) test-retest reliability, and (4) longitudinal consistency, remains uncharacterized. We evaluated 128 workflows consisting of 16 feature representations derived from gray matter (GM) images and eight ML algorithms with diverse inductive biases. Using four large neuroimaging databases covering the adult lifespan (total N = 2953, 18-88 years), we followed a systematic model selection procedure by sequentially applying stringent criteria. The 128 workflows showed a within-site mean absolute error (MAE) between 4.73-8.38 years, from which 32 broadly sampled workflows showed a cross-site MAE between 5.23-8.98 years. The test-retest reliability and longitudinal consistency of the top 10 workflows were comparable. The choice of feature representation and the ML algorithm both affected the performance. Specifically, voxel-wise feature spaces (smoothed and resampled), with and without principal components analysis, with non-linear and kernel-based ML algorithms performed well. Strikingly, the correlation of brain-age delta with behavioral measures disagreed between within-site and cross-site predictions. Application of the best-performing workflow on the ADNI sample showed a significantly higher brain-age delta in Alzheimer’s and mild cognitive impairment patients. However, in the presence of age bias, the delta estimates in the diseased population varied depending on the sample used for bias correction. Taken together, brain-age shows promise, but further evaluation and improvements are needed for its real-world application. Highlights There is an effect of both feature space and ML algorithm on prediction error. Voxel-wise features performed better than parcel-wise features. GPR, KRR and RVR algorithms performed well. The within-site and cross-site delta-behavior correlations disagree. Higher brain-age delta inference in AD depends on data used for bias correction.
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 | 0.028 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".