Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33738883›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2021

Brain age prediction: A comparison between machine learning models using region- and voxel-based morphometric data.

Lea Baecker, Jessica Dafflon, Pedro F da Costa, Rafael Garcia-Dias, Sandra Vieira, Cristina Scarpazza, Vince D Calhoun, João R Sato, Andrea Mechelli, Walter H L Pinaya

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. When Age Is More Than a Number: Acceleration of Brain Aging in Neurodegenerative Diseases.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lea BaeckerDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6218-0292
Jessica DafflonDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Pedro F da CostaDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Rafael Garcia-DiasDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Sandra VieiraDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Cristina ScarpazzaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Vince D CalhounTri-institutional Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science (TReNDS), Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
João R SatoCenter of Mathematics, Computing and Cognition, Universidade Federal do ABC, São Paulo, Brazil.
Andrea MechelliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Walter H L PinayaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Male/Female differences in psychosis and mood disorders:Dynamic imaging-genomic models for characterizing and predicting psychosis and mood dR01MH118695 · NIMH · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ADALI, TULAY, CALHOUN, VINCE D · 2019 to 2023
$3.8M
A decentralized macro and micro gene-by-environment interaction analysis of substance use behavior and its brain biomarkers R01DA049238 · NIDA · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CALHOUN, VINCE D, LIU, JINGYU · 2019 to 2023
$2.9M
Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853NIH HHS R01DA049238NIH HHS R01MH118695Wellcome Trust 208519/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain morphology varies across the ageing trajectory and the prediction of a person's age using brain features can aid the detection of abnormalities in the ageing process. Existing studies on such "brain age prediction" vary widely in terms of their methods and type of data, so at present the most accurate and generalisable methodological approach is unclear. Therefore, we used the UK Biobank data set (N = 10,824, age range 47-73) to compare the performance of the machine learning models support vector regression, relevance vector regression and Gaussian process regression on whole-brain region-based or voxel-based structural magnetic resonance imaging data with or without dimensionality reduction through principal component analysis. Performance was assessed in the validation set through cross-validation as well as an independent test set. The models achieved mean absolute errors between 3.7 and 4.7 years, with those trained on voxel-level data with principal component analysis performing best. Overall, we observed little difference in performance between models trained on the same data type, indicating that the type of input data had greater impact on performance than model choice. All code is provided online in the hope that this will aid future research.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedAge FactorsBrainFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuroimagingRegression AnalysisSupport Vector Machinebiological ageinghealthy ageingmachine learningregression analysissupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID33738883
PMCPMC8090783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.