Rate of brain aging associates with future executive function in Asian children and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain age has emerged as a powerful tool to understand neuroanatomical aging and its link to health outcomes like cognition. However, there remains a lack of studies investigating the rate of brain aging and its relationship to cognition. Furthermore, most brain age models are trained and tested on cross-sectional data from primarily Caucasian, adult participants. It is thus unclear how well these models generalize to non-Caucasian participants, especially children. Here, we tested a previously published deep learning model on Singaporean elderly participants (55-88 years old) and children (4-11 years old). We found that the model directly generalized to the elderly participants, but model finetuning was necessary for children. After finetuning, we found that the rate of change in brain age gap was associated with future executive function performance in both elderly participants and children. We further found that lateral ventricles and frontal areas contributed to brain age prediction in elderly participants, while white matter and posterior brain regions were more important in predicting brain age of children. Taken together, our results suggest that there is potential for generalizing brain age models to diverse populations. Moreover, the longitudinal change in brain age gap reflects developing and aging processes in the brain, relating to future cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".