Reframing the Brain Age Prediction Problem to a More Interpretable and Quantitative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning models have achieved state-of-the-art results in estimating brain age, which is an important brain health biomarker, from magnetic resonance (MR) images. However, most of these models only provide a global age prediction, and rely on techniques, such as saliency maps to interpret their results. These saliency maps highlight regions in the input image that were significant for the model's predictions, but they are hard to be interpreted, and saliency map values are not directly comparable across different samples. In this work, we reframe the age prediction problem from MR images to an image-to-image regression problem where we estimate the brain age for each brain voxel in MR images. We compare voxel-wise age prediction models against global age prediction models and their corresponding saliency maps. The results indicate that voxel-wise age prediction models are more interpretable, since they provide spatial information about the brain aging process, and they benefit from being quantitative.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".