Cited by 872Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Predicting brain age with deep learning from raw imaging data results in a reliable and heritable biomarker

Open access
Cole, James H., Poudel, Rudra P.K., Tsagkrasoulis, Dimosthenis, Caan, Matthan W.A., Steves, Claire, Spector, Tim D., Montana, Giovanni·2017·NeuroImage

Abstract

&NA; Machine learning analysis of neuroimaging data can accurately predict chronological age in healthy people. Deviations from healthy brain ageing have been associated with cognitive impairment and disease. Here we sought to further establish the credentials of ‘brain‐predicted age’ as a biomarker of individual differences in the brain ageing process, using a predictive modelling approach based on deep learning, and specifically convolutional neural networks (CNN), and applied to both pre‐processed and raw T1‐weighted MRI data. Firstly, we aimed to demonstrate the accuracy of CNN brain‐predicted age using a large dataset of healthy adults (N = 2001). Next, we sought to establish the heritability of brain‐predicted age using a sample of monozygotic and dizygotic female twins (N = 62). Thirdly, we examined the test‐retest and multi‐centre reliability of brain‐predicted age using two samples (within‐scanner N = 20; between‐scanner N = 11). CNN brain‐predicted ages were generated and compared to a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) approach, on all datasets. Input data were grey matter (GM) or white matter (WM) volumetric maps generated by Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) or raw data. CNN accurately predicted chronological age using GM (correlation between brain‐predicted age and chronological age r = 0.96, mean absolute error [MAE] = 4.16 years) and raw (r = 0.94, MAE = 4.65 years) data. This was comparable to GPR brain‐predicted age using GM data (r = 0.95, MAE = 4.66 years). Brain‐predicted age was a heritable phenotype for all models and input data (h2 ≥ 0.5). Brain‐predicted age showed high test‐retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.90–0.99). Multi‐centre reliability was more variable within high ICCs for GM (0.83–0.96) and poor‐moderate levels for WM and raw data (0.51–0.77). Brain‐predicted age represents an accurate, highly reliable and genetically‐influenced phenotype, that has potential to be used as a biomarker of brain ageing. Moreover, age predictions can be accurately generated on raw T1‐MRI data, substantially reducing computation time for novel data, bringing the process closer to giving real‐time information on brain health in clinical settings. HighlightsChronological age can be accurately predicted using convolutional neural networks.Age predicted is accurate even using raw structural neuroimaging data.Brain‐predicted age can be generated in a clinically applicable timeframe.Brain‐predicted age is significantly heritable.Brain‐predicted age is highly reliable, both within and between scanners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.059

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cole, J. H., Poudel, R. P. K., Tsagkrasoulis, D., Caan, M. W. A., Steves, C., Spector, T. D., & Montana, G.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Montana, Giovanni
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
163
Pages
115-124
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2579617530
Cited by
872
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 6
FWCI
49.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Medical Research Council
  • European Commision’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013, 259749)
  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  • BioResource, Clinical Research Facility
  • Biomedical Research Centre
  • St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  • Imperial College London from the Medical Research Council (MR/L022141/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
brain age prediction, brain aging, biomarkers, heritability, monozygotic and dizygotic twins, test-retest reliability, convolutional neural networks, gray matter volume, white matter volume, Gaussian process regression, healthy adults, cognitive impairment risk, neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Brain, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Phenotype, Neural Networks, Computer, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review