Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37123443›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2023

A systematic review of multimodal brain age studies: Uncovering a divergence between model accuracy and utility.

Robert J Jirsaraie, Aaron J Gorelik, Martins M Gatavins, Denis A Engemann, Ryan Bogdan, Deanna M Barch, Aristeidis Sotiras

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Association of imaging-defined brain age with disease severity and adverse outcomes in CADASIL.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Temporal autocorrelation is predictive of age-An extensive MEG time-series analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Robert J JirsaraieDivision of Computational and Data Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aaron J GorelikDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Martins M GatavinsDivision of Computational and Data Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Denis A EngemannRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Ryan BogdanDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Deanna M BarchDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aristeidis SotirasDepartment of Radiology and Institute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · USRoche (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain aging is a complex, multifaceted process that can be challenging to model in ways that are accurate and clinically useful. One of the most common approaches has been to apply machine learning to neuroimaging data with the goal of predicting age in a data-driven manner. Building on initial brain age studies that were derived solely from T1-weighted scans (i.e., unimodal), recent studies have incorporated features across multiple imaging modalities (i.e., "multimodal"). In this systematic review, we show that unimodal and multimodal models have distinct advantages. Multimodal models are the most accurate and sensitive to differences in chronic brain disorders. In contrast, unimodal models from functional magnetic resonance imaging were most sensitive to differences across a broad array of phenotypes. Altogether, multimodal imaging has provided us valuable insight for improving the accuracy of brain age models, but there is still much untapped potential with regard to achieving widespread clinical utility.

Indexed as

brain agemachine learningmultimodal imagingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37123443
PMCPMC10140612
OpenAlexW4365511615

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.