Five dominant dimensions of brain aging are identified via deep learning: associations with clinical, lifestyle, and genetic measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain aging is a complex process influenced by various lifestyle, environmental, and genetic factors, as well as by age-related and often co-existing pathologies. MRI and, more recently, AI methods have been instrumental in understanding the neuroanatomical changes that occur during aging in large and diverse populations. However, the multiplicity and mutual overlap of both pathologic processes and affected brain regions make it difficult to precisely characterize the underlying neurodegenerative profile of an individual from an MRI scan. Herein, we leverage a state-of-the art deep representation learning method, Surreal-GAN, and present both methodological advances and extensive experimental results that allow us to elucidate the heterogeneity of brain aging in a large and diverse cohort of 49,482 individuals from 11 studies. Five dominant patterns of neurodegeneration were identified and quantified for each individual by their respective (herein referred to as) R-indices. Significant associations between R-indices and distinct biomedical, lifestyle, and genetic factors provide insights into the etiology of observed variances. Furthermore, baseline R-indices showed predictive value for disease progression and mortality. These five R-indices contribute to MRI-based precision diagnostics, prognostication, and may inform stratification into clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".