Mega‐analysis of the brain‐age gap in substance use disorder: An ENIGMA Addiction working group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The brain age gap (BAG), calculated as the difference between a machine learning model-based predicted brain age and chronological age, has been increasingly investigated in psychiatric disorders. Tobacco and alcohol use are associated with increased BAG; however, no studies have compared global and regional BAG across substances other than alcohol and tobacco. This study aimed to compare global and regional estimates of brain age in individuals with substance use disorders and healthy controls. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This is an Enhancing Neuro Imaging through Meta-Analysis Consortium (ENIGMA) Addiction Working Group study including data from 38 global sites. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 2606 participants, of whom 1725 were cases with a substance use disorder and 881 healthy controls. MEASUREMENTS: This study used the Kaufmann brain age prediction algorithms to generate global and regional brain age estimates using T1 weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. We used linear mixed effects models to compare global and regional (FreeSurfer lobestrict output) BAG (i.e. predicted minus chronological age) between individuals with one of five primary substance use disorders as well as healthy controls. FINDINGS: Alcohol use disorder (β = -5.49, t = -5.51, p < 0.001) was associated with higher global BAG, whereas amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder (β = 3.44, t = 2.42, p = 0.02) was associated with lower global BAG in the separate substance-specific models. CONCLUSIONS: People with alcohol use disorder appear to have a higher brain-age gap than people without alcohol use disorder, which is consistent with other evidence of the negative impact of alcohol on the brain.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".