Brain Age Estimation on a Dementia Cohort Using FLAIR MRI Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease presents an imperative intervention window. This work focuses on using brain age prediction models and biomarkers from FLAIR MR imaging to identify subjects who progress to Alzheimer's disease (converting mild cognitive impairment) or those who remain stable (stable mild cognitive impairment). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A machine learning model was trained to predict the age of normal control subjects on the basis of volume, intensity, and texture features from 3239 FLAIR MRI volumes. The brain age gap estimation (BrainAGE) was computed as the difference between the predicted and true age, and it was used as a biomarker for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Differences in biomarker means, slopes, and intercepts were investigated using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. Correlation analysis was performed between brain age gap estimation and established Alzheimer's disease indicators. RESULTS: The brain age prediction model showed accurate results (mean absolute error = 2.46 years) when testing on held out normal control data. The computed BrainAGE metric showed significant differences between the stable mild cognitive impairment and converting mild cognitive impairment groups in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, most notably showing significant differences up to 4 years before conversion to Alzheimer's disease. A significant correlation was found between BrainAGE and previously established Alzheimer's disease conversion biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: The BrainAGE metric can allow clinicians to consider a single explainable value that summarizes all the biomarkers because it considers many dimensions of disease and can determine whether the subject has normal aging patterns or if he or she is trending into a high-risk category using a single value.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".