Mind the gap: performance metric evaluation in brain-age prediction
Ann‐Marie G. de LangeiD, Melis AnatürkiD, Jaroslav RokickiiD, Laura K. M. HaniD, Katja FrankeiD, Dag AlnæsiD, Klaus P. EbmeieriD, Bogdan DraganskiiD, Tobias KaufmanniD, Lars Tjelta WestlyeiD, Tim HahniD, James Howard ColeiD
Abstract
Estimating age based on neuroimaging-derived data has become a popular approach to developing markers for brain integrity and health. While a variety of machine-learning algorithms can provide accurate predictions of age based on brain characteristics, there is significant variation in model accuracy reported across studies. We predicted age based on neuroimaging data in two population-based datasets, and assessed the effects of age range, sample size, and age-bias correction on the model performance metrics r, R2, Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). The results showed that these metrics vary considerably depending on cohort age range; r and R2 values are lower when measured in samples with a narrower age range. RMSE and MAE are also lower in samples with a narrower age range due to smaller errors/brain age delta values when predictions are closer to the mean age of the group. Across subsets with different age ranges, performance metrics improve with increasing sample size. Performance metrics further vary depending on prediction variance as well as mean age difference between training and test sets, and age-bias corrected metrics indicate high accuracy - also for models showing poor initial performance. In conclusion, performance metrics used for evaluating age prediction models depend on cohort and study-specific data characteristics, and cannot be directly compared across different studies. Since age-bias corrected metrics in general indicate high accuracy, even for poorly performing models, inspection of uncorrected model results provides important information about underlying model attributes such as prediction variance.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 162
- FWCI
- 16.88
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Prediction of brain age using structural magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison of accuracy and test-retest reliability of publicly available software packages
Ruben P. Dörfel, Joan M. Arenas‐Gomez, … Pontus Plavén‐Sigray·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Oct 16, 2023
- Considerations on brain age predictions from repeatedly sampled data across time
Max Korbmacher, Mengyun Wang, … Karsten Specht·Brain and BehaviorPeer-reviewed·Aug 16, 2023
- Probing Multiple Algorithms to Calculate Brain Age: Examining Reliability, Relations with Demographics, and Predictive Power
Eva Bacas, Isabella Kahhalé, … Jamie Lars Hanson·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Apr 5, 2023
- Brain-age prediction: a systematic comparison of machine learning workflows
Shammi More, Georgios Antonopoulos, … the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Feb 16, 2023
- Brain-Age Prediction: Systematic Evaluation of Site Effects, and Sample Age Range and Size
Yuetong Yu, H. Cui, … ENIGMA‐Lifespan Working Group·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2024
- Predicting brain-age from multimodal imaging data captures cognitive impairment
Franziskus Liem, Gael P. Varoquaux, … Daniel S. Margulies·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Nov 23, 2016