ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Brain Age Algorithm Performance: Investigating Bias Across Six Popular Methods.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain age algorithms, which estimate biological aging from neuroimaging data, are increasingly used as biomarkers for health and disease. However, most algorithms are trained on datasets with limited racial and ethnic diversity, raising concerns about potential algorithmic bias that could exacerbate health disparities. To probe this potential, we evaluated six popular brain age algorithms using data from the Health and Aging Brain Study-Health Disparities (HABS-HD), comprising 1,123 White American, 1,107 Hispanic American, and 678 African American participants, ages ≥50. Comparing correlations between brain age and chronological age across racial/ethnic groups, relations were consistently weaker for African American participants compared to White and Hispanic American participants across most algorithms (ranging from r=0.51-0.85 for African Americans vs. r=0.57-0.89 for other groups). We also examined error for brain age v. chronological age and found significant differences in median errors across racial/ethnic groups, though specific patterns varied by algorithm. Sensitivity models weighting for age, sex, and scan quality noted similar patterns, with all algorithms maintaining significant differences in correlation or median prediction error between groups. Our findings reveal systematic performance differences in brain age algorithms across racial and ethnic groups, with most algorithms consistently showing reduced algorithm accuracy for African American and/or Hispanic-American participants. These biases, which are likely introduced at multiple stages of algorithm development, could impact clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy. Results highlight the urgent need for more inclusive algorithm development and validation to ensure equitable healthcare applications of neuroimaging biomarkers.
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.