Multimodal brain age prediction fusing morphometric and imaging data and association with cardiovascular risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The difference between the chronological and biological brain age, called the brain age gap (BAG), has been identified as a promising biomarker to detect deviation from normal brain aging and to indicate the presence of neurodegenerative diseases. Moreover, the BAG has been shown to encode biological information about general health, which can be measured through cardiovascular risk factors. Current approaches for biological brain age estimation, and therefore BAG estimation, either depend on hand-crafted, morphological measurements extracted from brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or on direct analysis of brain MRI images. The former can be processed with traditional machine learning models while the latter is commonly processed with convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Using a multimodal setting, this study aims to compare both approaches in terms of biological brain age prediction accuracy and biological information captured in the BAG. Methods: T1-weighted MRI, containing brain tissue information, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), providing information about brain arteries, from 1,658 predominantly healthy adults were used. The volumes, surface areas, and cortical thickness of brain structures were extracted from the T1-weighted MRI data, while artery density and thickness within the major blood flow territories and thickness of the major arteries were extracted from MRA data. Independent multilayer perceptron and CNN models were trained to estimate the brain age from the hand-crafted features and image data, respectively. Next, both approaches were fused to assess the benefits of combining image data and hand-crafted features for brain age prediction. Results: The combined model achieved a mean absolute error of 4 years between the chronological and predicted biological brain age. Among the independent models, the lowest mean absolute error was observed for the CNN using T1-weighted MRI data (4.2 years). When evaluating the BAGs obtained using the different approaches and imaging modalities, diverging associations between cardiovascular risk factors were found. For example, BAGs obtained from the CNN models showed an association with systolic blood pressure, while BAGs obtained from hand-crafted measurements showed greater associations with obesity markers. Discussion: In conclusion, the use of more diverse sources of data can improve brain age estimation modeling and capture more diverse biological deviations from normal aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".