Gray matter volume drives the brain age gap in schizophrenia: a SHAP study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neuroimaging-based brain age is a biomarker that is generated by machine learning (ML) predictions. The brain age gap (BAG) is typically defined as the difference between the predicted brain age and chronological age. Studies have consistently reported a positive BAG in individuals with schizophrenia (SCZ). However, there is little understanding of which specific factors drive the ML-based brain age predictions, leading to limited biological interpretations of the BAG. We gathered data from three publicly available databases - COBRE, MCIC, and UCLA - and an additional dataset (TOPSY) of early-stage schizophrenia (82.5% untreated first-episode sample) and calculated brain age with pre-trained gradient-boosted trees. Then, we applied SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to identify which brain features influence brain age predictions. We investigated the interaction between the SHAP score for each feature and group as a function of the BAG. These analyses identified total gray matter volume (group × SHAP interaction term β = 1.71 [0.53; 3.23]; p corr < 0.03) as the feature that influences the BAG observed in SCZ among the brain features that are most predictive of brain age. Other brain features also presented differences in SHAP values between SCZ and HC, but they were not significantly associated with the BAG. We compared the findings with a non-psychotic depression dataset (CAN-BIND), where the interaction was not significant. This study has important implications for the understanding of brain age prediction models and the BAG in SCZ and, potentially, in other psychiatric disorders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
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 it