ArticleScientific reports2023
Diagnostic accuracy of brain age prediction in a memory clinic population and comparison with clinically available volumetric measures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- When Age Is More Than a Number: Acceleration of Brain Aging in Neurodegenerative Diseases.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Complementary value of molecular, phenotypic, and functional aging biomarkers in dementia prediction.GeroScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic validity of a deep learning-based method estimating brain age based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare it with volumetrics obtained using NeuroQuant (NQ) in a clinical cohort. Brain age prediction was performed on minimally processed MRI data using deep convolutional neural networks and an independent training set. The brain age gap (difference between chronological and biological age) was calculated, and volumetrics were performed in 110 patients with dementia (Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and dementia with Lewy bodies), and 122 with non-dementia (subjective and mild cognitive impairment). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) based on receiver operating characteristics and logistic regression analyses were performed. The mean age was 67.1 (9.5) years and 48.7% (113) were females. The dementia versus non-dementia sensitivity and specificity of the volumetric measures exceeded 80% and yielded higher AUCs compared to BAG. The explained variance of the prediction of diagnostic stage increased when BAG was added to the volumetrics. Further, BAG separated patients with FTD from other dementia etiologies with > 80% sensitivity and specificity. NQ volumetrics outperformed BAG in terms of diagnostic discriminatory power but the two methods provided complementary information, and BAG discriminated FTD from other dementia etiologies.
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.