Integration of Genetic Information to Improve Brain Age Gap Estimation Models in the <scp>UK</scp> Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodegeneration occurs when the body's central nervous system becomes impaired as a person ages, which can happen at an accelerated pace. Neurodegeneration impairs quality of life, affecting essential functions, including memory and the ability to self-care. Genetics play an important role in neurodegeneration and longevity. Brain age gap estimation (BrainAGE) is a biomarker that quantifies the difference between a machine learning model-predicted biological age of the brain and the true chronological age for healthy subjects; however, a large portion of the variance remains unaccounted for in these models, attributed to individual differences. This study focuses on predicting the BrainAGE more accurately, aided by genetic information associated with neurodegeneration. To achieve this, a BrainAGE model was developed based on MRI measures, and then the associated genes were determined with a Genome-Wide Association Study. Subsequently, genetic information was incorporated into the models. The incorporation of genetic information yielded improvements in the model performances by 7% to 12%, showing that the incorporation of genetic information can notably reduce unexplained variance. This work helps to define new ways of determining persons susceptible to neurological aging decline and reveals genes for targeted precision medicine therapies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".