Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37843020›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2023

Prediction of brain age using structural magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison of accuracy and test-retest reliability of publicly available software packages.

Ruben P Dörfel, Joan M Arenas-Gomez, Patrick M Fisher, Melanie Ganz, Gitte M Knudsen, Jonas E Svensson, Pontus Plavén-Sigray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Elevated HbA1c is associated with advanced brain age in severe obesity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Ruben P DörfelNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5920-5102
Joan M Arenas-GomezNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Patrick M FisherNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Melanie GanzNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gitte M KnudsenNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jonas E SvenssonNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pontus Plavén-SigrayNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5342-5641

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain age prediction algorithms using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) aim to assess the biological age of the human brain. The difference between a person's chronological age and the estimated brain age is thought to reflect deviations from a normal aging trajectory, indicating a slower or accelerated biological aging process. Several pre-trained software packages for predicting brain age are publicly available. In this study, we perform a comparison of such packages with respect to (1) predictive accuracy, (2) test-retest reliability, and (3) the ability to track age progression over time. We evaluated the six brain age prediction packages: brainageR, DeepBrainNet, brainage, ENIGMA, pyment, and mccqrnn. The accuracy and test-retest reliability were assessed on MRI data from 372 healthy people aged between 18.4 and 86.2 years (mean 38.7 ± 17.5 years). All packages showed significant correlations between predicted brain age and chronological age (r = 0.66-0.97, p < 0.001), with pyment displaying the strongest correlation. The mean absolute error was between 3.56 (pyment) and 9.54 years (ENIGMA). brainageR, pyment, and mccqrnn were superior in terms of reliability (ICC values between 0.94-0.98), as well as predicting age progression over a longer time span. Of the six packages, pyment and brainageR consistently showed the highest accuracy and test-retest reliability.

Indexed as

BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareYoung AdultAccuracyBrain AgeMRIReliabilityTest-Retest

Identifiers

PMID37843020
PMCPMC10619370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.