Author response: Population clustering of structural brain aging and its association with brain development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural brain aging has demonstrated strong inter-individual heterogeneity and mirroring patterns with brain development. However, due to the lack of large-scale longitudinal neuroimaging studies, most of the existing research focused on the cross-sectional changes of brain aging. In this investigation, we present a data-driven approach that incorporate both cross-sectional changes and longitudinal trajectories of structural brain aging and identified two brain aging patterns among 37,013 healthy participants from UK Biobank. Participants with accelerated brain aging also demonstrated accelerated biological aging, cognitive decline and increased genetic susceptibilities to major neuropsychiatric disorders. Further, by integrating longitudinal neuroimaging studies from a multi-center adolescent cohort, we validated the “last in, first out” mirroring hypothesis and identified brain regions with manifested mirroring patterns between brain aging and brain development. Genomic analyses revealed risk loci and genes contributing to accelerated brain aging and delayed brain development, providing molecular basis for elucidating the biological mechanisms underlying brain aging and 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.211 | 0.056 |
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".