MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116840006 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_110227

Sex Differences in Brain Age Gap Estimation Across Alzheimer's Disease Diagnostic Groups

2025· article· en· W7116840006 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Rajabli, Mahdie Soltaninejad, D Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseEstimationCognitionAge groupsCognitive declineCognitive reserveBrain disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brain Age Gap (BAG), the difference between age estimated from brain MRI and chronological age, is a potential feature for quantifying an individual's overall level of neurodegeneration. As a global measure, BAG can be used to examine differences in the extent of neurodegeneration across various groups. In this study, we apply BAG to amyloid positive subjects and investigate potential sex differences in different diagnostic groups. METHOD: We trained five different models on UK Biobank (UKBB) and the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) data, with an age range of [45, 89] and nearly balanced sex distribution, to build an ensemble model for predicting brain age from T1w images. To ensure the model's generalization within the training age range, we used robust image preprocessing methods, massive data augmentation, and model regularization techniques (Rajabli 2024). Using our brain age prediction model, without further fine-tuning, we estimated BAG on Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) samples. RESULT: We estimated the brain age gap for all cognitively normal subjects, regardless of amyloid status, and found no significant sex difference (-0.24 ± 3.85 for males, -0.05 ± 4.04 for females), indicating that our model is not biased toward either sex. As shown in previous studies and reaffirmed by our model, BAG increases along the AD trajectory (Figure 1). After correcting for age and the ADAS13 cognitive score, we found a residual statistically significant sex difference (p < 0.05) in BAG estimations, with amyloid-positive female brains appearing older than their male counterparts across all diagnostic groups except MCI, as determined by an ANCOVA test. Table 1 summarizes the statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: We showed that female brains appear older than male brains in most diagnostic groups. While we corrected for age and ADAS13 within each group, this finding may suggest that females have greater cognitive reserve than males.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→