MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119480808 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_106692

Higher Muscle Volume is Inversely Related to Chronological and Brain Age While Increased Visceral to Muscle Fat Ratio is Positively Related to Chronological and Brain Age

2025· article· en· W7119480808 on OpenAlexaff
Cyrus A. Raji, Somayeh Meysami, Soojin Lee, Saurabh Garg, Nasrin Akbari, Rodrigo Solis Pompa, Ahmed Gouda, Thanh D. Nguyen, Saqib Basar, Yosef Gavriel Chodakiewitz, David A. Merrill, Amar Patel, Daniel J. Durand, Sam Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Academic Health Science Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain sizeAdipose tissueCoronal planeSubcutaneous adipose tissueAge groupsPartial volumeMagnetic resonance imagingMuscle tissue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Brain age predicted from structural brain images on T1 weighted scans can lend insight to Alzheimer's risk factors such as muscle loss with sarcopenia. We thus investigated the link between body MRI measured muscle mass, muscle to fat ratio and brain age. Method In all, 1,164 healthy participants from four sites (mean chronological age 55.17 ± 12.37 years, 52% women; 48% men; 39% non‐white) were scanned on 1.5T MR machines with a whole‐body protocol. Whole body sequences utilized in the quantitative analyses of muscle mass were coronal T1 were used to segment total muscle volume normalized to participant height, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (VAT). In this process, a nnU‐Net model was used for fully supervised segmentation and ITK‐SNAP was used for manual annotation. Brain age was computed from T1 MPRAGE scans using a regression‐based 3D Simple Fully Convolutional Network. The model was trained on in‐house T1‐weighted MRI scans collected from 5,500 healthy individuals, aged 18 to 89 years. Brain age gap (BAG) was calculated by subtracting chronological age from brain age. Bivariate correlations between total normalized muscle volume (TNMV) as well as VAT and SAT normalized to total muscle volume to chronological and brain age were done with partial correlations adjusted for sex with brain age analyses. Result Mean brain age was higher than chronological age (56.04 ± 12.65, mean BAG = 0.69). Higher TNMV was related to both decreased chronological age (rp=‐0.2579, p = 2.524e‐17) and brain age (rp =‐0.2497, p = 2.65e‐16). VAT normalized to total muscle volume was linked to higher chronological (rp=0.3755, p = 2.615e‐36) and brain age (rp=0.3797, p = 3.871e‐37) adjusting for sex. No statistically significant links were noted with TNMV, VAT, SAT or and BAG. SAT was also not correlated in a statistically significant way to chronological or brain age. Conclusion Increasing muscle mass is related to lower chronological and brain age while visceral fat normalized to muscle volume is related to increased chronological and brain age. Lack of correlation to BAG may be due to the relatively low BAG in this sample. This work suggests improving muscle mass and reducing visceral fat may improve 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→