ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Mind the Gap: Does Brain Age Improve Alzheimer's Disease Prediction?
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alzheimer's Disease Brain Phenotypes are Age-dependent.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Brain Age as a Biomarker in Alzheimer's Disease: Narrative Perspectives on Imaging, Biomarkers, Machine Learning, and Intervention Potential.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Aging as an active player in Alzheimer's disease classification: Insights from feature selection in BrainAge models.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Aging as an active player in Alzheimer's Disease Classification: Insights from feature selection in BrainAge Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Mind the Gap: Does Brain Age Improve Alzheimer's Disease Prediction?Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Clinically altered brain activity may not look like aged brain activity: Implications for brain-age modeling and biomarker strategies.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain age is widely regarded as a powerful marker of general brain health. Brain age models are typically trained on large datasets to predict chronological age, which may offer advantages in predicting specific health outcomes, much like the success of finetuning large language models for specific applications. However, it is also well accepted that machine learning models trained to directly predict specific outcomes (i.e., direct models) often outperform those trained on surrogate objectives. Therefore, despite their much larger training data, it is unclear whether brain age models outperform direct models in predicting specific brain health outcomes. Here, we compare large-scale brain age models (pretrained on 53,542 participants) and direct models for predicting specific health outcomes related to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. Using anatomical T1 scans from three continents (N = 1,848), we find that summarizing brain age with a single scalar (i.e., brain age gap) led to poor prediction performance. Using higher-dimensional intermediate representations of brain age models led to better prediction, but was still worse than direct models without finetuning. Using intermediate representations of finetuned brain age models was necessary to achieve similar performance to direct models. Overall, our results do not discount brain age as a useful marker of general brain health but suggest that using chronological age as a pretraining target might be suboptimal for predicting specific health 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.