ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2025
Repeatability and reproducibility of brain age estimates in multiple sclerosis for three publicly available models.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerated Brain Aging Identifies Functional Vulnerability Beyond Chronological Age in Multiple Sclerosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Brain Age With Standard MRI Assessment for Dementia Risk Stratification in Subjective and Mild Cognitive Impairment.Neurology · 2026Article
- Association of Brain Age With Physical Disability and Cognitive Impairment in People With Multiple Sclerosis of the Same Age.Neurology · 2026Article
- Ultra-fast MRI for brain-age prediction in a real-world cognitive disorders clinic.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accelerated brain aging is a marker of disease-related neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS). Artificial intelligence models, trained on healthy individuals, can estimate age from brain MRI scans, but the effects of technical variations between MR scanners and conditions on these estimates are currently insufficiently investigated. This study aims to determine the within-scanner repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility of the brain-predicted age difference (brain-PAD) across three brain age models. 30 people with multiple sclerosis and 10 healthy controls (mean age 44.2 ± 11.7 years and 39.2 ± 12.9 years, respectively), underwent six scans in a single day; a scan and immediate on a 3 T GE, 1.5 T Siemens and a 3 T Siemens MRI-scanner. Brain-PAD was determined using brainageR, DeepBrainNet and the MIDI-model from 3D T1w brain MRI-scans. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to quantify absolute agreement within-scanner (ICC-AA) and between-scanner consistency (ICC-C). Variance component analyses were used to determine the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC). Brain-PAD was higher for pwMS compared to HC when predicted with brainageR and DeepBrainNet, not when predicted with the MIDI-model. Within-scanner repeatability was excellent (ICC-AA>0.93) for all models. Between-scanner reproducibility was good to excellent (ICC-C>0.85) for brainageR and the MIDI-model, while DeepBrainNet, showed excellent between-scanner reproducibility for Sola vs. VIDA (ICC-C:0.97), but moderate for GE vs. Sola and for GE vs. Vida (ICC-C:0.63 and 0.61). Between-scanner SDC was 6.56 years for brainageR, 5.57 years for the MIDI-model and 22.65 years for DeepBrainNet. Our findings demonstrated high repeatability of brain age estimates from the same scanner, but variable reproducibility across different scanners, irrespective of the brain age prediction model.
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.