ArticleBrain informatics2024
Examining the reliability of brain age algorithms under varying degrees of participant motion.
Article in Brain informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive and Brain Reserve as Modifiers of Early Alzheimer Disease-Related Cognitive Vulnerability.Neurology · 2026Trial
- A Systematic Evaluation of the Performance of Multiple Brain Age Algorithms in Two Cohorts of Youth.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Brain Age Algorithm Performance: Investigating Bias Across Six Popular Methods.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of AI-driven MRI Motion Artifact Detection and Correction.ArXiv · 2025Article
- Unraveling Microstructural and Macrostructural Brain Age Dynamics in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2025Article
- Fitness and exercise effects on brain age: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of sport and health science · 2025Article
- Investigating dynamic brain functional redundancy as a mechanism of cognitive reserve.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Advanced structural brain aging in preclinical autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease.Molecular neurodegeneration · 2023Article
- Association between 24-h time-use composition and brain age: The IGNITE study.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain age algorithms using data science and machine learning techniques show promise as biomarkers for neurodegenerative disorders and aging. However, head motion during MRI scanning may compromise image quality and influence brain age estimates. We examined the effects of motion on brain age predictions in adult participants with low, high, and no motion MRI scans (Original N = 148; Analytic N = 138). Five popular algorithms were tested: brainageR, DeepBrainNet, XGBoost, ENIGMA, and pyment. Evaluation metrics, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and Bland-Altman analyses assessed reliability across motion conditions. Linear mixed models quantified motion effects. Results demonstrated motion significantly impacted brain age estimates for some algorithms, with ICCs dropping as low as 0.609 and errors increasing up to 11.5 years for high motion scans. DeepBrainNet and pyment showed greatest robustness and reliability (ICCs = 0.956-0.965). XGBoost and brainageR had the largest errors (up to 13.5 RMSE) and bias with motion. Findings indicate motion artifacts influence brain age estimates in significant ways. Furthermore, our results suggest certain algorithms like DeepBrainNet and pyment may be preferable for deployment in populations where motion during MRI acquisition is likely. Further optimization and validation of brain age algorithms is critical to use brain age as a biomarker relevant for clinical outcomes.
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.