MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409913388 · doi:10.5954/icarob.2025.os8-6

Accurate Brain Age Prediction Through Advanced Preprocessing and 3D ResNet-50 Modeling

2025· article· en· W4409913388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ting‐An Chang, C. S. Yeh, Chunliang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology CouncilNational Science Council
KeywordsResidual neural networkComputer sciencePreprocessorArtificial intelligenceDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate brain age prediction from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) holds significant potential for advancing our understanding of the aging process and its effects on neural structures.In this paper, a robust preprocessing pipeline and two state-of-the-art 3D convolutional neural network architectures, 3D ResNet-50 and 3D DenseNet-121, were employed to develop and evaluate a brain age prediction model.The preprocessing steps included skull removal, spatial normalization to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template, and brain tissue segmentation into gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).These steps ensured consistency and accuracy in the input data.The experimental results demonstrated that the 3D ResNet-50 architecture achieved superior performance, with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 3.9 for individuals over 50 years of age, surpassing the MAE of 4.1 achieved by the 3D DenseNet-121 model.These findings validate the efficacy of the proposed preprocessing pipeline and highlight the critical role of tailored deep learning architectures in brain age prediction.Future research could further enhance prediction accuracy by integrating multimodal imaging data and exploring hybrid model architectures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of International Conference on Artificial Life and RoboticsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207