Brain age identification from diffusion MRI synergistically predicts neurodegenerative disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimated brain age from magnetic resonance image (MRI) and its deviation from chronological age can provide early insights into potential neurodegenerative diseases, supporting early detection and implementation of prevention strategies to slow disease progression and onset. Diffusion MRI (dMRI), a widely used modality for brain age estimation, presents an opportunity to build an earlier biomarker for neurodegenerative disease prediction because it captures subtle microstructural changes that precede more perceptible macrostructural changes. However, the coexistence of macro- and micro-structural information in dMRI raises the question of whether current dMRI-based brain age estimation models are leveraging the intended microstructural information or if they inadvertently rely on the macrostructural information. To develop a microstructure-specific brain age, we propose a method for brain age identification from dMRI that mitigates the model's use of macrostructural information by non-rigidly registering all images to a standard template. Imaging data from 13,398 participants across 12 datasets were used for the training and evaluation. We compare our brain age models, trained with and without macrostructural information mitigated, with an architecturally similar T1-weighted (T1w) MRI-based brain age model and two recent, popular, openly available T1w MRI-based brain age models that primarily use macrostructural information. We observe difference between our dMRI-based brain age and T1w MRI-based brain age across stages of neurodegeneration, with dMRI-based brain age being older than T1w MRI-based brain age in participants transitioning from cognitively normal (CN) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (p-value = 0.023), but younger in participants already diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) (p-value < 0.001). Classifiers using T1w MRI-based brain ages generally outperform those using dMRI-based brain age in classifying CN versus AD participants. Conversely, dMRI-based brain age may offer advantages over T1w MRI-based brain age in predicting the transition from CN to MCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".