A deep learning model for brain age prediction using minimally preprocessed T1w images as input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the last few years, several models trying to calculate the biological brain age have been proposed based on structural magnetic resonance imaging scans (T1-weighted MRIs, T1w) using multivariate methods and machine learning. We developed and validated a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based biological brain age prediction model that uses one T1w MRI preprocessing step when applying the model to external datasets to simplify implementation and increase accessibility in research settings. Our model only requires rigid image registration to the MNI space, which is an advantage compared to previous methods that require more preprocessing steps, such as feature extraction. Methods: We used a multicohort dataset of cognitively healthy individuals (age range = 32.0-95.7 years) comprising 17,296 MRIs for training and evaluation. We compared our model using hold-out (CNN1) and cross-validation (CNN2-4) approaches. To verify generalisability, we used two external datasets with different populations and MRI scan characteristics to evaluate the model. To demonstrate its usability, we included the external dataset's images in the cross-validation training (CNN3). To ensure that our model used only the brain signal on the image, we also predicted brain age using skull-stripped images (CNN4). Results: The trained models achieved a mean absolute error of 2.99, 2.67, 2.67, and 3.08 years for CNN1-4, respectively. The model's performance in the external dataset was in the typical range of mean absolute error (MAE) found in the literature for testing sets. Adding the external dataset to the training set (CNN3), overall, MAE is unaffected, but individual cohort MAE improves (5.63-2.25 years). Salience maps of predictions reveal that periventricular, temporal, and insular regions are the most important for age prediction. Discussion: We provide indicators for using biological (predicted) brain age as a metric for age correction in neuroimaging studies as an alternative to the traditional chronological age. In conclusion, using different approaches, our CNN-based model showed good performance using one T1w brain MRI preprocessing step. The proposed CNN model is made publicly available for the research community to be easily implemented and used to study ageing and age-related 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.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".