Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489428›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2025

Do Transformers and CNNs Learn Different Concepts of Brain Age?

Nys Tjade Siegel, Dagmar Kainmueller, Fatma Deniz, Kerstin Ritter, Marc-Andre Schulz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Nys Tjade SiegelDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-2385-1656
Dagmar KainmuellerMax-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany.
Fatma DenizBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin RitterDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health), Berlin, Germany.
Marc-Andre SchulzDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Brain and Behavior Research FoundationDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 389563835Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 402170461-TRR 265Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 414984028-CRC 1404Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 442075332-RU 5187Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 459422098-RU 5363Deutschen Multiple Sklerose GesellschaftHertie Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Predicted brain age" refers to a biomarker of structural brain health derived from machine learning analysis of T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance (MR) images. A range of machine learning methods have been used to predict brain age, with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) currently yielding state-of-the-art accuracies. Recent advances in deep learning have introduced transformers, which are conceptually distinct from CNNs, and appear to set new benchmarks in various domains of computer vision. Given that transformers are not yet established in brain age prediction, we present three key contributions to this field: First, we examine whether transformers outperform CNNs in predicting brain age. Second, we identify that different deep learning model architectures potentially capture different (sub-)sets of brain aging effects, reflecting divergent "concepts of brain age". Third, we analyze whether such differences manifest in practice. To investigate these questions, we adapted a Simple Vision Transformer (sViT) and a shifted window transformer (SwinT) to predict brain age, and compared both models with a ResNet50 on 46,381 T1-weighted structural MR images from the UK Biobank. We found that SwinT and ResNet performed on par, though SwinT is likely to surpass ResNet in prediction accuracy with additional training data. Furthermore, to assess whether sViT, SwinT, and ResNet capture different concepts of brain age, we systematically analyzed variations in their predictions and clinical utility for indicating deviations in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Reassuringly, we observed no substantial differences in the structure of brain age predictions across the model architectures. Our findings suggest that the choice of deep learning model architecture does not appear to have a confounding effect on brain age studies.

Indexed as

AgingBrainDeep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerNeuroimagingAdultAgedFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40489428
PMCPMC12147945

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.