MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409640249 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.11.648433

Deep learning using structural MRI massively improves prediction accuracy of body mass index

2025· preprint· en· W4409640249 on OpenAlexaff
Alysha Cooper, Mahmoud Elsayed, Max M. Owens, James MacKillop

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceBody mass indexComputer scienceMassively parallelPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineInternal medicineParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Obesity is a major public health problem globally and there is considerable interest in the neural mechanisms in food overconsumption. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning, has shown promise in characterizing links between brain morphometry and obesity. In 1106 adults, compared to other forms of machine learning, deep learning using 3D convolutional neural networks (3D-CNN) dramatically improves prediction of body mass index (BMI). The 3D-CNN model robustly predicted BMI ( R 2 =.325), outperforming random forest, elastic net, and tabnet models ( R 2 s<.07) in a ‘lockbox’ sample. Explainable AI analyses revealed the specific brain regions implicated and these regions were moderately associated with delay discounting, fluid cognition, gait speed, dexterity, and alcohol use. Collectively, these findings reveal the value of deep learning for understanding of the neural basis and motivational processes in the neurobiology of obesity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207