Machine Learning-Driven Prediction of Brain Age for Alzheimer’s Risk: APOE4 Genotype and Gender Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a leading cause of dementia, and it is significantly influenced by the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) gene and gender. This study aimed to use machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict brain age and assess AD risk by considering the effects of the APOE4 genotype and gender. Methods: We collected brain volumetric MRI data and medical records from 1100 cognitively unimpaired individuals and 602 patients with AD. We applied three ML regression models—XGBoost, random forest (RF), and linear regression (LR)—to predict brain age. Additionally, we introduced two novel metrics, brain age difference (BAD) and integrated difference (ID), to evaluate the models’ performances and analyze the influences of the APOE4 genotype and gender on brain aging. Results: Patients with AD displayed significantly older brain ages compared to their chronological ages, with BADs ranging from 6.5 to 10 years. The RF model outperformed both XGBoost and LR in terms of accuracy, delivering higher ID values and more precise predictions. Comparing the APOE4 carriers with noncarriers, the models showed enhanced ID values and consistent brain age predictions, improving the overall performance. Gender-specific analyses indicated slight enhancements, with the models performing equally well for both genders. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that robust ML models for brain age prediction can play a crucial role in the early detection of AD risk through MRI brain structural imaging. The significant impact of the APOE4 genotype on brain aging and AD risk is also emphasized. These findings highlight the potential of ML models in assessing AD risk and suggest that utilizing AI for AD identification could enable earlier preventative interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".