ArticleHuman brain mapping2026
Deep Learning-Based Structural Brain Age Estimation in Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia: A Single-Site Pilot Study.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accelerated brain aging has been implicated in severe mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD). Brain-PAD, derived from structural MRI, offers a promising biomarker of neurobiological aging, but its developmental course, within-group variability, and regional drivers remain incompletely understood. A three-dimensional convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) was trained exclusively on healthy controls (HC; n = 155) and then applied to independent BD (n = 122) and SZ (n = 161) groups. Brain-PAD was computed as predicted brain age minus chronological age. Age-by-group interactions, within-group dispersion, and sensitivity analyses (e.g., piecewise regression, inverse probability weighting) were conducted. Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) was used to identify regional contributions to brain age predictions. The 3D-CNN achieved high accuracy in HC (MAE = 3.05 years, r = 0.96), with reduced accuracy in BD (MAE = 8.86, r = 0.51) and SZ (MAE = 9.01, r = 0.48). Mean Brain-PAD was significantly elevated in BD (+4.2 ± 10.2 years) and SZ (+6.7 ± 8.7 years) relative to HC (+0.7 ± 3.5 years). Age-by-group analyses revealed that BD and SZ exhibited elevated Brain-PAD at younger ages, converging toward HC trajectories by midlife, followed by renewed divergence beyond age 40. This pattern was supported by piecewise and spline models showing steeper negative slopes in BD and SZ compared with HC. Variance and quantile regression indicated greater heterogeneity in BD and SZ across the Brain-PAD distribution. Grad-CAM highlighted temporal and frontal regions as central contributors across all groups; in SZ, Brain-PAD correlated positively with whole-brain (r = 0.23, p = 0.004), frontal (r = 0.21, p = 0.009), and temporal (r = 0.20, p = 0.012) activations, whereas BD showed weaker and more diffuse associations. SZ and BD exhibit elevated Brain-PAD early in adulthood with greater heterogeneity than healthy controls. Frontotemporal regions contribute prominently to brain-age predictions, reflecting model sensitivity to age-informative structure. These findings support Brain-PAD as a group-level marker of apparent brain aging and motivate longitudinal study of midlife divergence.
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.