Examining the influence of musical sophistication, cognitive performance, and social skills on the Brain Age Gap Estimate (BrainAGE)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain age, an estimate of biological brain aging derived from neuroimaging, has been linked to cognitive and related factors. Metrics such as the Brain Age Gap Estimate (BrainAGE), depicting the discrepancy between predicted and chronological age, are commonly used to determine the influence of variables on brain aging. This study explored how cognitive ability, musical sophistication, and social skills contribute to BrainAGE in a sample of 81 healthy participants who underwent high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging and completed cognitive, musical, and social assessments. Following statistical analyses to fit the model, structural equation modelling was used to examine the influence of cognitive ability, assessed using the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System, California Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; musical sophistication, measured by the Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index; and social skills, evaluated using the Social Skills Inventory, on BrainAGE. Our findings demonstrated no significant influence of cognitive ability, musical expertise, or social skills on BrainAGE. These findings highlight the complexity of cognitive and social influences on brain age and underscore the need for further research into their interactive effects on neurobiological 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it