Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35852028›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2022

Systematic evaluation of machine learning algorithms for neuroanatomically-based age prediction in youth.

Amirhossein Modabbernia, Heather C Whalley, David C Glahn, Paul M Thompson, Rene S Kahn, Sophia Frangou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  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. 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

6 authors.

Amirhossein ModabberniaDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Heather C WhalleyDivision of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Kennedy Tower, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
David C GlahnBoston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Paul M ThompsonImaging Genetics Center, Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rene S KahnDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Sophia FrangouDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3210-6470

Funding

ABCD-USA Consortium: Coordinating CenterU24DA041147 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SANDRA A BROWN, TERRY L. JERNIGAN · 2015 to 2026
$54.7M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Data Analysis, Informatics and Resource CenterU24DA041123 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ANDERS M DALE · 2015 to 2026
$51.5M
Adolescent Substance Use Initiation: Disentangling neurocognitive risks from consequences using longitudinal and genetically-informed methodsU01DA041120 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Monica Luciana, Sylia Wilson · 2015 to 2026
$34.5M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041089 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Joanna Jacobus, Susan F. Tapert · 2015 to 2026
$31.7M
Prospective Research Studies of Maturation (PRISM)- Research ProjectU01DA041134 · NIDA · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ERIN MCGLADE, PERRY FRANKLIN RENSHAW · 2015 to 2026
$29.2M
ABCD-USA CONSORTIUM: RESEARCH PROJECTU01DA041048 · NIDA · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES · PI Megan Marie Herting, ELIZABETH R SOWELL · 2015 to 2026
$28.7M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041106 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Mary M Heitzeg, Chandra Sekhar Sripada · 2015 to 2026
$24.9M
FIU-ABCD: Pathways and Mechanisms to Addiction in the Latino Youth of South FloridaU01DA041156 · NIDA · FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY · PI Raul Gonzalez, Angela R Laird · 2015 to 2026
$22.8M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041148 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Damien A Fair, Rebekah S Huber · 2015 to 2026
$22.3M
ABCD-USA: NYC Research ProjectU01DA041174 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Arielle Ryan Baskin-Sommers, Betty J Casey · 2015 to 2026
$19.7M
Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Prospective Research in Studies of Maturation (PRISM) ConsortiumU01DA041117 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI LINDA CHANG, THOMAS M ERNST · 2015 to 2026
$19.5M
ABCD-USA Consortium:Research ProjectU01DA041028 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DUNCAN B. CLARK, BEATRIZ LUNA · 2015 to 2026
$13.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD105351NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041022NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041025NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041028NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041048NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041089NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041093NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041106NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041117NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041120NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041134NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041148NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041156NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041174NIDA NIH HHS U24 DA041123NIDA NIH HHS U24 DA041147NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH113619NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH122394
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsMachine LearningAdolescentBayes TheoremBrainHumansNeuroimagingSupport Vector Machinebrain agedevelopmentmachine learningneuroimagingyouth

Identifiers

PMID35852028
PMCPMC9812239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.