ArticleScientific reports2023
Predicting 'Brainage' in late childhood to adolescence (6-17yrs) using structural MRI, morphometric similarity, and machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assessment of neurodevelopmental maturation: a comprehensive systematic literature review of artificial intelligence-based brain age prediction in pediatric populations.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological limitations of the BrainStructureAges pipeline from the volBrain platform: a brief report of the normative pediatric group.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- The cellular correlates and adolescent reorganisation of cortical myelination networks in the common marmoset.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Predicting the degree of trait emotional empathy from cortical features using surface-based morphometry.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integration of Genetic Information to Improve Brain Age Gap Estimation Models in the UK Biobank.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Current challenges and future directions for brain age prediction in children and adolescents.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Exploring the predictive value of structural covariance networks for the diagnosis of schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Brain development is regularly studied using structural MRI. Recently, studies have used a combination of statistical learning and large-scale imaging databases of healthy children to predict an individual's age from structural MRI. This data-driven, predicted 'Brainage' typically differs from the subjects chronological age, with this difference a potential measure of individual difference. Few studies have leveraged higher-order or connectomic representations of structural MRI data for this Brainage approach. We leveraged morphometric similarity as a network-level approach to structural MRI to generate predictive models of age. We benchmarked these novel Brainage approaches using morphometric similarity against more typical, single feature (i.e., cortical thickness) approaches. We showed that these novel methods did not outperform cortical thickness or cortical volume measures. All models were significantly biased by age, but robust to motion confounds. The main results show that, whilst morphometric similarity mapping may be a novel way to leverage additional information from a T1-weighted structural MRI beyond individual features, in the context of a Brainage framework, morphometric similarity does not provide more accurate predictions of age. Morphometric similarity as a network-level approach to structural MRI may be poorly positioned to study individual differences in brain development in healthy participants in this way.
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.