ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Developing a multi-modal neuroimaging-based BrainAge model across childhood.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BrainAge models hold promise as a clinical biomarker for developmental brain health, especially in childhood when there is the potential for early intervention. To distinguish between normative developmental variance and pathological divergence, BrainAge models should reflect the dynamic and diverse neurodevelopmental processes that occur in distinct developmental windows across childhood. We utilized multi-modal neuroimaging data from three pediatric cohorts covering ages 4 to 13 years (n = 1005, 2126 scans), split into Train and Test datasets. Twelve sex-stratified BrainAge models were built stratified by type and different combinations of neuroimaging features. Model types were "Full-Span" models covering the full age range, and "Phase-Specific" models split into early- and late-childhood. We first compared BrainAge estimates in the Test dataset amongst our candidate models, then benchmarked the best-performing model against published pre-trained models and DNA-based biological age measures. Our findings show that a BrainAge model that was phase-specific and consisted of both structural and functional features (cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and functional network integration measures) showed good prediction of age and best distinguished between healthy and symptomatic subgroups. We present a proof-of-concept for developmental models supporting building BrainAge models of higher temporal resolution that align to different childhood developmental phases.
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.