MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411145111 · doi:10.1002/hbm.70252

Brain Aging in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease From the <scp>UK</scp> Biobank

2025· article· en· W4411145111 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth McAvoy, Emma A. M. Stanley, Anthony Winder, Matthias Wilms, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankDiseaseMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain undergoes complex but normal structural changes during the aging process in healthy adults, whereas deviations from the normal aging patterns of the brain can be indicative of various conditions as well as an increased risk for the development of diseases. The brain age gap (BAG), which is defined as the difference between the chronological age and the machine learning-predicted biological age of an individual, is a promising biomarker for determining whether an individual deviates from normal brain aging patterns. While the BAG has shown promise for various neurological diseases and cardiovascular risk factors, its utility to quantify brain changes associated with diagnosed cardiovascular diseases has not been investigated to date, which is the aim of this study. T1-weighted MRI scans from healthy participants in the UK Biobank were used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) model for biological brain age prediction. The trained model was then used to quantify and compare the BAGs for all participants in the UK Biobank with known cardiovascular diseases, as well as healthy controls and patients with known neurological diseases for benchmark comparisons. Saliency maps were computed for each individual to investigate whether brain regions used for biological brain age prediction by the CNN differ between groups. The analyses revealed significant differences in BAG distributions for 10 of the 42 sex-specific cardiovascular disease groups investigated compared to healthy participants, indicating disease-specific variations in brain aging. However, no significant differences were found regarding the brain regions used for brain age prediction as determined by saliency maps, indicating that the model mostly relied on healthy brain aging patterns, even in the presence of cardiovascular diseases. Overall, the findings of this work demonstrate that the BAG is a sensitive imaging biomarker to detect differences in brain aging associated with specific cardiovascular diseases. This further supports the theory of the heart-brain axis by exemplifying that many cardiovascular diseases are associated with atypical brain aging.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207