ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Prediction of brain age using structural magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison of clinical validity of publicly available software packages.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain age estimated from structural magnetic resonance images is commonly used as a biomarker of biological aging and brain health. Ideally, as a clinically valid biomarker, brain age should indicate the current state of health and be predictive of future disease onset and detrimental changes in brain biology. In this preregistered study, we evaluated and compared the clinical validity, i.e., diagnostic and prognostic performance, of six publicly available brain age prediction packages using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Baseline brain age differed significantly between groups consisting of individuals with normal cognitive function, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease for all packages, but with comparable performance to estimates of gray matter volume. Further, brain age estimates were not centered around zero for cognitively normal subjects and showed considerable variation between packages. Finally, brain age was only weakly correlated with disease onset, memory decline, and gray matter atrophy within four years from baseline in individuals without neurodegenerative disease. The systematic discrepancy between chronological age and brain age among healthy subjects, combined with the weak associations between brain age and longitudinal changes in memory performance or gray matter volume, suggests that the current brain age estimates have limited clinical validity as a biomarker for biological aging.
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.