Slower Ageing of Cross-Frequency Coupling Mechanisms Across Resting-State Networks Is Associated with Better Cognitive Performance in the Picture Priming Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain age gap (BAG), the divergence of an individual’s neurobiologically predicted brain age from their chronological age, is a key indicator of brain health. While BAG can be derived from diverse brain metrics, its interpretation often polarizes between early-life trait influences and current state-dependent factors like cognitive decline. Here, we propose an integrative framework that moves beyond single summary statistics by considering the full distribution of brain metrics across regions or time. We distinguish between a neural system’s “baseline” (typical values, e.g., mean) and its “capacity” (extreme values, e.g., maximum) within these distributions. To test this, we analyzed resting-state magnetoencephalography (MEG) from the Cam-CAN adult cohort, focusing on cross-frequency coupling (CFC) within functional MRI-defined networks. We derived network-specific CFC baseline (mean) and capacity (maximum) measures. Separate brain age prediction models were trained for each measure. The resulting BAGs (baseline-BAG and capacity-BAG) for each network were then correlated with cognitive performance on a picture priming task. Both baseline-BAG and capacity-BAG profiles showed associations with cognitive scores, with younger predicted brain age correlating with better performance. However, capacity-BAG exhibited more conclusive relationships, suggesting that metrics reflecting a neural system’s peak operational ability (capacity) may better capture an individual’s current cognitive state. These findings indicate that brain age models emphasizing neural capacity, rather than just baseline activity, could offer a more sensitive lens for understanding the state-dependent aspects of brain ageing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".