Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906870›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2022

Asymmetric generalizability of multimodal brain-behavior associations across age-groups.

Junhong Yu, Nastassja L Fischer

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Junhong YuPsychology, School of Social Sciences, National Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2563-9658
Nastassja L FischerCentre for Research and Development in Learning (CRADLE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H008217/1Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning methods have increasingly been used to map out brain-behavior associations (BBA), and to predict out-of-scanner behavior of unseen subjects. Given the brain changes that occur in the context of aging, the accuracy of these predictions is likely to depend on how similar the training and testing data sets are in terms of age. To this end, we examined how well BBAs derived from an age-group generalize to other age-groups. We partitioned the CAM-CAN data set (N = 550) into the young, middle, and old age-groups, then used the young and old age-groups to construct prediction models for 11 behavioral outcomes using multimodal neuroimaging features (i.e., structural and resting-state functional connectivity, and gray matter volume/cortical thickness). These models were then applied to all three age-groups to predict their behavioral scores. When the young-derived models were used, a graded pattern of age-generalization was generally observed across most behavioral outcomes-predictions are the most accurate in the young subjects in the testing data set, followed by the middle and then old-aged subjects. Conversely, when the old-derived models were used, the disparity in the predictive accuracy across age-groups was mostly negligible. These findings hold across different imaging modalities. These results suggest the asymmetric age-generalization of BBAs-old-derived BBAs generalized well to all age-groups, however young-derived BBAs generalized poorly beyond their own age-group.

Indexed as

BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAgingHumansMachine LearningMiddle AgedNeuroimagingagegeneralizabilityaginggray matterresting state functional connectivitystructural connectivity

Identifiers

PMID35906870
PMCPMC9704787

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.