A Systematic Evaluation of the Performance of Multiple Brain Age Algorithms in Two Cohorts of Youth

The brain matures rapidly during childhood and adolescence. The environment may calibrate the pace of this process to shape cognition and mental health. Extending its utility as a risk marker from older to younger populations, brain age has been proposed to capture relative brain maturity in youth. Multiple algorithms have been developed to estimate brain age in predominantly White advantaged adults. Whether these models are useful in youth, particularly in more representative cohorts, remains unclear. Here, we systematically compare five influential algorithms (Drobinin, Whitmore, Pyment, Kaufmann, Centile) in two population-based youth cohorts as a benchmark for future applied research. We examined (a) prediction accuracy (correlation with chronological age, mean absolute error), (b) sensitivity to scanning parameters (acquisition sequence, image quality), demographics (sex, puberty), and genetic similarity (intraclass correlations in pairs of monozygotic twins), and (c) strength of convergence between algorithms. In our primary sample of twins recruited from birth records to represent families in disadvantaged neighborhoods (N = 593; 9-19 years), three algorithms (Drobinin, Pyment, Centile) exhibited strong predictions from structural MRI data (correlations with chronological age = 0.51-0.68, mean absolute error = 1.60-3.02). These algorithms also generated correlated brain age values and gaps, and the expected pattern of strong but not identical intraclass correlations in monozygotic twins. Pyment exhibited the strongest correlation with age and was not sensitive to acquisition sequence, image quality, sex, and puberty. In a second sample of predominantly Black, low-income youth with a narrow age range (N = 198; 15-17 years), these five algorithms exhibited weak predictions. This study raises critical questions about what "brain age" means, how it can best be estimated depending on the research question and study population, and whether it can be universally applied across samples with heterogeneous backgrounds and age ranges that are narrow or misaligned with the training data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Brain Mapping
Published
2026-01-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.70458
Primary Topic
Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Systematic Evaluation of the Performance of Multiple Brain Age Algorithms in Two Cohorts of Youth

N H Jones, C W Michael, Christopher S. Monk, Colter Mitchell et al.
Human Brain Mapping
Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
article

A Systematic Evaluation of the Performance of Multiple Brain Age Algorithms in Two Cohorts of Youth

N H Jones, C W Michael, Christopher S. Monk, Colter Mitchell, Heidi B. Westerman, Jamie L. Hanson, S. Alexandra Burt, Kelly L. Klump, Luke W. Hyde
article en

Abstract

The brain matures rapidly during childhood and adolescence. The environment may calibrate the pace of this process to shape cognition and mental health. Extending its utility as a risk marker from older to younger populations, brain age has been proposed to capture relative brain maturity in youth. Multiple algorithms have been developed to estimate brain age in predominantly White advantaged adults. Whether these models are useful in youth, particularly in more representative cohorts, remains unclear. Here, we systematically compare five influential algorithms (Drobinin, Whitmore, Pyment, Kaufmann, Centile) in two population-based youth cohorts as a benchmark for future applied research. We examined (a) prediction accuracy (correlation with chronological age, mean absolute error), (b) sensitivity to scanning parameters (acquisition sequence, image quality), demographics (sex, puberty), and genetic similarity (intraclass correlations in pairs of monozygotic twins), and (c) strength of convergence between algorithms. In our primary sample of twins recruited from birth records to represent families in disadvantaged neighborhoods (N = 593; 9-19 years), three algorithms (Drobinin, Pyment, Centile) exhibited strong predictions from structural MRI data (correlations with chronological age = 0.51-0.68, mean absolute error = 1.60-3.02). These algorithms also generated correlated brain age values and gaps, and the expected pattern of strong but not identical intraclass correlations in monozygotic twins. Pyment exhibited the strongest correlation with age and was not sensitive to acquisition sequence, image quality, sex, and puberty. In a second sample of predominantly Black, low-income youth with a narrow age range (N = 198; 15-17 years), these five algorithms exhibited weak predictions. This study raises critical questions about what "brain age" means, how it can best be estimated depending on the research question and study population, and whether it can be universally applied across samples with heterogeneous backgrounds and age ranges that are narrow or misaligned with the training data.

Human Brain MappingVol. 47(2)
University of Pittsburgh (US), University of Michigan (US), Advanced Materials Corporation (United States) (US), Institute for Social Research (NO), Michigan State University (US)
Michigan State University, University of Pittsburgh, National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, National Institutes of Health, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.