Brain age of rhesus macaques over the lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the application of machine learning algorithms to neuroimaging data the brain age methodology was shown to provide a useful individual-level biological age prediction and identify key brain regions responsible for the prediction. In this study, we present the methodology of constructing a rhesus macaque brain age model using a machine learning algorithm and discuss the key predictive brain regions in comparison to the human brain, to shed light on cross-species primate similarities and differences. Structural information of the brain (e.g., parcellated volumes) from brain magnetic resonance imaging of 43 rhesus macaques were used to develop brain atlas-based features to build a brain age model that predicts biological age. The best-performing model used 22 selected features and achieved an R2 of 0.72. We also identified interpretable predictive brain features including Right Fronto-orbital Cortex, Right Frontal Pole, Right Inferior Lateral Parietal Cortex, and Bilateral Posterior Central Operculum. Our findings provide converging evidence of the parallel and comparable brain regions responsible for both non-human primates and human biological age prediction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".