ArticleHuman brain mapping2022
Systematic evaluation of machine learning algorithms for neuroanatomically-based age prediction in youth.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prescriptive Predictors of Mindfulness Ecological Momentary Intervention for Social Anxiety Disorder: Machine Learning Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial Data.JMIR mental health · 2025Trial
- Resting-state and task-state fNIRS fusion assessment method for upper limb motor function in stroke patients.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Brain Age in Conduct Disorder:: A Mega-Analysis of the ENIGMA Antisocial Behavior Working Group.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Using Machine Learning Methods to Predict Cognitive Age from Psychophysiological Tests.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Brain age gap is associated with cognitive abilities in captive chimpanzees.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Structural-functional connectivity decoupling in multiscale brain networks in Parkinson's disease.BMC neuroscience · 2024Article
- Exploring associations between psychotic experiences and structural brain age: a population-based study in late adolescence.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Brain Age Gap in Early Illness Schizophrenia and the Clinical High-Risk Syndrome: Associations With Experiential Negative Symptoms and Conversion to Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2024Article
- Associations of plasma proteomics and age-related outcomes with brain age in a diverse cohort.GeroScience · 2024Article
- Brain-age prediction: Systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Prediction of malaria positivity using patients' demographic and environmental features and clinical symptoms to complement parasitological confirmation before treatment.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2023Article
- Predicting 'Brainage' in late childhood to adolescence (6-17yrs) using structural MRI, morphometric similarity, and machine learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Predicting 'Brainage' in the Developmental Period using Structural MRI, Morphometric Similarity, and Machine Learning.Research square · 2023Article
- Systematic evaluation of machine learning algorithms for neuroanatomically-based age prediction in youth.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Application of machine learning (ML) algorithms to structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) data has yielded behaviorally meaningful estimates of the biological age of the brain (brain-age). The choice of the ML approach in estimating brain-age in youth is important because age-related brain changes in this age-group are dynamic. However, the comparative performance of the available ML algorithms has not been systematically appraised. To address this gap, the present study evaluated the accuracy (mean absolute error [MAE]) and computational efficiency of 21 machine learning algorithms using sMRI data from 2105 typically developing individuals aged 5-22 years from five cohorts. The trained models were then tested in two independent holdout datasets, one comprising 4078 individuals aged 9-10 years and another comprising 594 individuals aged 5-21 years. The algorithms encompassed parametric and nonparametric, Bayesian, linear and nonlinear, tree-based, and kernel-based models. Sensitivity analyses were performed for parcellation scheme, number of neuroimaging input features, number of cross-validation folds, number of extreme outliers, and sample size. Tree-based models and algorithms with a nonlinear kernel performed comparably well, with the latter being especially computationally efficient. Extreme Gradient Boosting (MAE of 1.49 years), Random Forest Regression (MAE of 1.58 years), and Support Vector Regression (SVR) with Radial Basis Function (RBF) Kernel (MAE of 1.64 years) emerged as the three most accurate models. Linear algorithms, with the exception of Elastic Net Regression, performed poorly. Findings of the present study could be used as a guide for optimizing methodology when quantifying brain-age in youth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.