MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390665001 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1303036

A deep learning model for brain age prediction using minimally preprocessed T1w images as input

2024· article· en· W4390665001 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline Machado Dartora, Anna Marseglia, Gustav Mårtensson, Gull Rukh, Junhua Dang, J‐Sebastian Muehlboeck, Lars‐Olof Wahlund, Rodrigo Moreno, José Barroso, Daniel Ferreira, Helgi B. Schiöth, Eric Westman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchParkinsonfondenNational Institutes of HealthIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationServierShionogiJapan Science and Technology AgencyVetenskapsrådetEisaiAstellas PharmaKarolinska InstitutetCenter for Innovative MedicineNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationDaiichi-SankyoUniversidad de La LagunaEuropean CommissionEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsGenentechKungliga Tekniska HögskolanNvidiaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaStockholms Läns LandstingBiogenPfizerBioClinicaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbÅke Wiberg Stiftelse
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychologyMachine learningNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207