ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Multimodal brain age prediction fusing morphometric and imaging data and association with cardiovascular risk factors.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brain Aging in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease From the UK Biobank.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- ds-FCRN: three-dimensional dual-stream fully convolutional residual networks and transformer-based global-local feature learning for brain age prediction.Brain structure & function · 2025Article
- Unravelling pathological ageing with brain age gap estimation in Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and schizophrenia.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Biological heart and brain ageing in subjects with cardiovascular diseases.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Lifespan brain age prediction based on multiple EEG oscillatory features and sparse group lasso.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Predicting Brain Age and Gender from Brain Volume Data Using Variational Quantum Circuits.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Brain Age Prediction Using 2D Projections Based on Higher-Order Statistical Moments and Eigenslices from 3D Magnetic Resonance Imaging Volumes.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Brain Age Prediction Using Six Imaging Modalities on Middle-Aged and Older Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The difference between the chronological and biological brain age, called the brain age gap (BAG), has been identified as a promising biomarker to detect deviation from normal brain aging and to indicate the presence of neurodegenerative diseases. Moreover, the BAG has been shown to encode biological information about general health, which can be measured through cardiovascular risk factors. Current approaches for biological brain age estimation, and therefore BAG estimation, either depend on hand-crafted, morphological measurements extracted from brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or on direct analysis of brain MRI images. The former can be processed with traditional machine learning models while the latter is commonly processed with convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Using a multimodal setting, this study aims to compare both approaches in terms of biological brain age prediction accuracy and biological information captured in the BAG. Methods: T1-weighted MRI, containing brain tissue information, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), providing information about brain arteries, from 1,658 predominantly healthy adults were used. The volumes, surface areas, and cortical thickness of brain structures were extracted from the T1-weighted MRI data, while artery density and thickness within the major blood flow territories and thickness of the major arteries were extracted from MRA data. Independent multilayer perceptron and CNN models were trained to estimate the brain age from the hand-crafted features and image data, respectively. Next, both approaches were fused to assess the benefits of combining image data and hand-crafted features for brain age prediction. Results: The combined model achieved a mean absolute error of 4 years between the chronological and predicted biological brain age. Among the independent models, the lowest mean absolute error was observed for the CNN using T1-weighted MRI data (4.2 years). When evaluating the BAGs obtained using the different approaches and imaging modalities, diverging associations between cardiovascular risk factors were found. For example, BAGs obtained from the CNN models showed an association with systolic blood pressure, while BAGs obtained from hand-crafted measurements showed greater associations with obesity markers. Discussion: In conclusion, the use of more diverse sources of data can improve brain age estimation modeling and capture more diverse biological deviations from normal aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.