Table 1.
Chronological age prediction accuracy for the considered methods.
| Type | Method | Val MAE | Val | Test MAE | Test | No. I | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) | T1-weighted | CNN | 3.996 | 0.810 | 4.006 | 0.829 | 1815 |
| Jacobian | CNN | 4.801 | 0.710 | 4.804 | 0.758 | 1815 | |
| Gray matter | CNN | 4.766 | 0.721 | 4.641 | 0.776 | 1815 | |
| White matter | CNN | 4.676 | 0.735 | 4.189 | 0.812 | 1815 | |
| (B) | MV (T1 and JM) | CNN | 4.102 | 0.803 | 3.919 | 0.841 | 1815 |
| MV (GM and WM) | CNN | 4.172 | 0.790 | 3.674 | 0.849 | 1815 | |
| MV (T1, JM, and GM) | CNN | 3.964 | 0.813 | 3.838 | 0.847 | 1815 | |
| MV (T1, JM, GM, and WM) | CNN | 3.845 | 0.849 | 3.584 | 0.849 | 1815 | |
| LRB (T1, JM, GM, and WM) | CNN | 3.581 | 0.847 | 3.388 | 0.872 | 1815 | |
| (C) | SBM | RR | 5.268 | 0.689 | 5.176 | 0.697 | 1320 |
| VBM | GPR | 4.278 | 0.781 | 4.317 | 0.766 | 1794 | |
| SM | RR | 4.898 | 0.722 | 4.937 | 0.728 | 1815 | |
| MV (SBM, VBM, and SM) | GPR/RR | 4.008 | 0.808 | 3.940 | 0.761 | 1246 | |
| LRB (SBM, VBM, and SM) | GPR/RR | 3.906 | 0.812 | 3.849 | 0.766 | 1246 |
(A) The best results are shown in bold. (B) The training/validation/test split is the same as for (A).
(C) The cross validation was performed using 10-fold cross validation. The SBM feature training/test split was 1056/264, the VBM feature training/test split was 1438/356, and the SM feature training/test split was 1469/346
(A) The performance of the CNNs that were trained using T1-weighted images, Jacobian maps, GM and WM segmented images. Training set (), validation set (), and test set (). (B) The performance when combining CNN predictions. (C) The results of the best methods trained on SBM, VBM and similarity matrix features
CV cross validation, GM gray matter, I images, JM Jacobian map, LRB linear regression blender, MV majority voting, MAE mean absolute error, RR ridge regression, SM similarity matrix, SBM surface-based morphometry, val validation, VBM voxel-based morphometry, WM white matter