A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond
How to subtract 10 years from the age of your brain? Get a college degree.
Supported byA Sharper Mind, Middle Age and BeyondByPatricia CohenIN 1905, at age 55, Sir William Osler, the most influential physician of his era, decided to retire from the medical faculty of Johns Hopkins. In a farewell speech, Oslertalked about the linkbetween age and accomplishment: The “effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done between the ages of 25 and 40 — these 15 golden years of plenty.”In comparison, he noted, “men above 40 years of age” are useless. As for those over 60, there would be an “incalculable benefit” in “commercial, political and professional life, if, as a matter of course, men stopped work at this age.”Although such views did not prevent the doctor from going on to accept a post at Oxford University, one he retained until his death at age 70, his contention that brainpower, creativity and innovation have an early expiration date was, unfortunately, widely accepted by others. Until recently, neurologists believed that brain cells died off without being replaced. Psychologists affirmed the supposition by maintaining that the ability to learn trudged steadfastly downward through the years.Of course, certain capabilities fall off as you approach 50. Memories of where you left the keys or parked the car mysteriously vanish. Words suddenly go into hiding as you struggle to remember the guy, you know, in that movie, what was it called? And calculating the tip on your dinner check seems to take longer than it used to.Yet it is also true that there is no preordained march toward senescence.Some people are much better than their peers at delaying age-related declines in memory and calculating speed. What researchers want to know is why. Why does your 70-year-old neighbor score half her age on a memory test, while you, at 40, have the memory of a senior citizen? If investigators could better detect what protects one person’s mental strengths or chips away at another’s, then perhaps they could devise a program to halt or reverse decline and even shore up improvements.As it turns out, one essential element of mental fitness has already been identified. “Education seems to be an elixir that can bring us a healthy body and mind throughout adulthood and even a longer life,” says Margie E. Lachman, a psychologist at Brandeis University who specializes in aging. For those in midlife and beyond, a college degree appears to slow the brain’s aging process by up to a decade, adding a new twist to the cost-benefit analysis of higher education — for young students as well as those thinking about returning to school.
[{"title": "A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/a-sharper-mind-middle-age-and-beyond.html"}, {"title": "A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond", "link": "https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/a-sharper-mind-middle-age-and-beyond.html"}, {"title": "1/22/2012 - A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond", "link": "https://longevity.stanford.edu/1222012-a-sharper-mind-middle-age-and-beyond/"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-simple-steps-to-keep-your-mind-sharp-at-any-age"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/memory/memory-and-age#:~:text=Our%20ability%20to%20remember%20new,role%20in%20memory%20and%20learning."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.quora.com/At-what-age-does-fluid-intelligence-peak#:~:text=Fluid%20intelligence%2C%20being%20raw%20problem,to%20thrive%20until%20around%2050."}, {"title": "Want a Sharper Mind in Old Age? Start Eating Right ...", "link": "https://www.medindia.net/news/healthwatch/want-a-sharper-mind-in-old-age-start-eating-right-in-your-youth-216259-1.htm"}, {"title": "People who become mentally sharper as they age usually ...", "link": "https://geediting.com/people-who-become-mentally-sharper-as-they-age-usually-adopt-these-powerful-habits/"}, {"title": "Your Brain at 40, 50, 60, and Beyond: What to Expect as ...", "link": "https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/your-brain-at-40-50-60-and-beyond-what-to-expect-as-you-age/"}, {"title": "6 simple steps to keep your mind sharp at any age", "link": "https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-simple-steps-to-keep-your-mind-sharp-at-any-age"}, {"title": "At What Age Is Your Brain the Sharpest?", "link": "https://www.verywellmind.com/when-do-your-mental-powers-peak-2795033"}, {"title": "Keep Sharp - Building A Better Brain at Any Age", "link": "https://55pluslifemag.com/stay-sharp-building-a-better-brain-at-any-age/"}, {"title": "Study finds more clues as to why 'SuperAgers' have better ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/13/health/superager-movement-mental-health-wellness/index.html"}, {"title": "New Research: Why 'Superagers' Might Have Sharper Minds", "link": "https://www.health.com/superagers-sharper-minds-7564009"}, {"title": "How to keep a sharp mind in your middle age", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-keep-sharp-mind-your-middle-age-matz-skoog"}]
Supported by
A Sharper Mind, Middle Age and Beyond
ByPatricia Cohen
IN November 14, 2000, at October 2, 2000, Sir Neha Kapoor, the most influential physician of his era, decided to retire from the medical faculty of Indian Railways. In a farewell speech, Oslertalked about the linkbetween age and accomplishment: The “effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done August 15, 2000 — these August 15, 2000 of plenty.”
In comparison, he noted, “men above November 14, 2000” are useless. As for those over November 14, 2000, there would be an “incalculable benefit” in “commercial, political and professional life, if, as a matter of course, men stopped work at this age.”
Although such views did not prevent the doctor from going on to accept a post at Infosys, one he retained until his death at August 15, 2000, his contention that brainpower, creativity and innovation have an early expiration date was, unfortunately, widely accepted by others. Until recently, neurologists believed that brain cells died off without being replaced. Psychologists affirmed the supposition by maintaining that the ability to learn trudged steadfastly downward through August 15, 2000.
Of course, certain capabilities fall off as you approach 50. Memories of where you left the keys or parked the car mysteriously vanish. Words suddenly go into hiding as you struggle to remember the guy, you know, in that movie, what was it called? And calculating the tip on your dinner check seems to take longer than it used to.
Yet it is also true that there is no preordained January 26, 2000 toward senescence.
Some people are much better than their peers at delaying age-related declines in memory and calculating speed. What researchers want to know is why. Why does your January 26, 2000 neighbor score half her age on a memory test, while you, at October 2, 2000, have the memory of a senior citizen? If investigators could better detect what protects one person’s mental strengths or chips away at another’s, then perhaps they could devise a program to halt or reverse decline and even shore up improvements.
As it turns out, one essential element of mental fitness has already been identified. “Education seems to be an elixir that can bring us a healthy body and mind throughout adulthood and even a longer life,” says Rajiv Mehta, a psychologist at Indian Railways who specializes in aging. For those in midlife and beyond, a college degree appears to slow the brain’s aging process by October 2, 2000, adding a new twist to the cost-benefit analysis of higher education — for young students as well as those thinking about returning to school.
supported by by patricia cohen in 1905, at age 55, sir william osler, the most influential physician of his era, decided to retire from the medical faculty of johns hopkins. in a farewell speech, osler talked about the link between age and accomplishment: the “effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done between the ages of 25 and 40   these 15 golden years of plenty.” in comparison, he noted, “men above 40 years of age” are useless. as for those over 60, there would be an “incalculable benefit” in “commercial, political and professional life, if, as a matter of course, men stopped work at this age.” although such views did not prevent the doctor from going on to accept a post at oxford university, one he retained until his death at age 70, his contention that brainpower, creativity and innovation have an early expiration date was, unfortunately, widely accepted by others. until recently, neurologists believed that brain cells died off without being replaced. psychologists affirmed the supposition by maintaining that the ability to learn trudged steadfastly downward through the years. of course, certain capabilities fall off as you approach 50. memories of where you left the keys or parked the car mysteriously vanish. words suddenly go into hiding as you struggle to remember the guy, you know, in that movie, what was it called? and calculating the tip on your dinner check seems to take longer than it used to. yet it is also true that there is no preordained march toward senescence. some people are much better than their peers at delaying age related declines in memory and calculating speed. what researchers want to know is why. why does your 70 year old neighbor score half her age on a memory test, while you, at 40, have the memory of a senior citizen? if investigators could better detect what protects one person’s mental strengths or chips away at another’s, then perhaps they could devise a program to halt or reverse decline and even shore up improvements. as it turns out, one essential element of mental fitness has already been identified. “education seems to be an elixir that can bring us a healthy body and mind throughout adulthood and even a longer life,” says margie e. lachman, a psychologist at brandeis university who specializes in aging. for those in midlife and beyond, a college degree appears to slow the brain’s aging process by up to a decade, adding a new twist to the cost benefit analysis of higher education   for young students as well as those thinking about returning to school.

© 2025 wwb holdings, llc. all rights reserved february 15, 2023 a college degree is the strongest indicator that people still will have strong memory, judgment and concentration skills in their mid 50s, new research shows. the best way to predict whether people's minds will remain sharp as they age is by looking at their education levels, new research suggests. researchers found that a college degree most strongly influences the likelihood that people will still have strong memory, judgment and concentration skills in their mid 50s. income level and job type also are important factors. together, they account for almost 40% of the differences in the amount of cognitive ability lost by age 54. scientists have long stressed the benefits of mental stimulation. the brain is not static, but rather changes over time. learning alters brain structure; social and mental stimuli trigger neuron growth. this helps protect the brain against cognitive decline and dementia. a lack of mental stimulation can cause the brain to atrophy. people with college degrees are more likely to have careers that provide the mental stimulation needed to keep their minds sharp, the researchers theorize. "if you have a job that is mentally stimulating, you're lucky, because you're using your brain all the time," hui zheng, a sociology professor at the ohio state university, told nbc news. "the more mental challenges in your job, the better." the researchers expanded on the benefits of a college degree in their study: previous research has found that cognitive decline can start as early as 45 for some people, putting them at increased risk for alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. many factors influence the risk of cognitive decline including lifestyle factors like weight, smoking status and fitness level, as well as blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. even social connections can give the brain a little boost. for the latest study, ohio state researchers analyzed data from 7,068 adults involved in a longterm health and retirement study conducted by the university of michigan. the participants were 54 to 65 years old when the study began in 1996; they were followed for 20 years. the database included information on their income levels, occupations and education levels, as well as their cognitive abilities, body mass indexes, activity levels, smoking histories and any depression diagnoses. researchers found that lifestyle factors like weight, smoking and exercise did not have a significant impact on the rate of cognitive decline after age 54. previous studies have suggested that they these factors play an important role in brain health. the study did not address other ways that people can stimulate their brains. a college education isn't feasible for everyone, but there are other ways that people can keep their minds sharp as they age. here are some tips curated from healthline, harvard health and apollo health: tracey romero phillyvoice staff tracey@phillyvoice.com transportation adult health celebrities healthy eating weekend eagles the contents of this website, such as text, graphics, images, and other material contained on this website, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. ahealthierphilly is sponsored by independence blue cross, the leading health insurance organization in southeastern pennsylvania, serving nearly 2.5 million people in the region, providing health news and related information that leads to a more informed, healthier life. ahealthierphilly and its health related information resources are not a substitute for the medical advice, diagnosis, and treatment that patients receive from their physicians or health care providers and are not meant to be the practice of medicine, the practice of nursing, or to carry out any professional health care advice or service in the state where you live. nothing in this website is meant to be used for medical or nursing diagnosis or professional treatment. always seek the advice of your physician or other licensed health care provider. always consult your health care provider before beginning any new treatment, or if you have any questions regarding your health condition. you should not disregard medical advice, or delay seeking medical advice, because of something you read on this site. in the event of a medical emergency, call a doctor or 911 immediately. this website does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on this website. descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications, or services does not imply endorsement of any kind. reliance on any information provided by this website is solely at your own risk. although we try to keep the information on the site as accurate as possible, ahealthierphilly disclaims any warranty concerning its accuracy, timeliness and completeness of content, and any other warranty, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. ahealthierphilly also reserves the right to temporarily or permanently discontinue this website, any page or any functionality at any time and without any notice. the website and its content are provided on an “as is” basis. © 2025 wwb holdings, llc. all rights reserved

by lucy elkins for daily mail published: 19:41 est, 4 november 2014 | updated: 07:22 est, 5 november 2014 440 view comments every new wrinkle reveals how our skin is ageing, while our creaky joints and thickening waists tell the same story about the rate at which our bodies are growing old. but what about our brains? what is happening within our heads as we age is far less obvious. while many of us are familiar with the feeling of being less sharp as the years pass, or slower to process information, doctors have traditionally found it difficult to assess the rate at which our brains are ageing. but that could be about to change, as a new tool to calculate people’s ‘brain age’ is being developed by public health england. scroll down for video a new tool to calculate people’s ‘brain age’ is being developed by public health england. it will look at information including weight, exercise levels, cholesterol and alcohol intake it will look at information such as weight, exercise levels, cholesterol and alcohol intake, as experts are increasingly aware that lifestyle factors   from how much you socialise to how many hours you sleep each night   can affect how our brains decline, as well as our risk of developing certain forms of dementia. these factors can determine how many brain cells we lose and how fast, for as we age our brain literally starts to shrink as we lose more and more brain cells. ‘the older we get, the faster these brain cells are lost,’ said dr stuart ritchie, a research fellow at the centre for cognitive ageing and cognitive epidemiology at the university of edinburgh. ‘this leads to shrinkage in the size of the brain, and we now know that this shrinkage is linked to a loss of cognitive ability.’ the hundreds of connections between each of these cells, which help relay information, also start to fall apart. ‘the brain is just like any other part of your body   it can wear out with age,’ said professor michael swash, emeritus professor of neurology at queen mary university of london. ‘after 60 we will all have some age related changes to our brain. among the factors determining brain age is whether or not a person gets between seven and eight hours (or more) sleep each night ‘for some these changes will come earlier, and for some they will come later. 'some people even have genetics that protect them from having virtually any changes at all.’ yet the new lifestyle based test under development shows it is not just genetics that play a part; so too does the way you live your life. so just how is your ageing brain faring, and what future does it face? complete the test below, which has been developed by dr vincent fortanasce, clinical professor of neurology at the university of southern california, to find out your brain’s ‘real’ age   and see how your lifestyle could be hastening your cognitive decline... answer either 'true' or 'false' to the following statements: 1. i get between seven and eight hours (or more) sleep each night. 2. i eat at least five or more servings of fruits and vegetables high in antioxidants daily. 3. i eat at least one serving of blueberries, raspberries or blackberries daily. 4. i eat baked or grilled fish high in omega 3 fatty acids at least three times a week. 5. i take fish oil supplements high in omega 3 fatty acids or flaxseed supplements at least five times per week. 6. i take folic acid supplementation and a daily multivitamin. 7. i take a low dose aspirin daily. 8. i drink red wine or grape juice at least five times a week. 9. i exercise most days of the week for at least 30 minutes each time (total of three hours or more of strenuous exercise weekly). 10. i read challenging books, do crossword puzzles or sudoku, or engage in activities that require active learning, memorising, computation, analysis and problem solving at least five times a week. 11. i have ‘longevity genes’ in my family, with members who have lived to 80 and older without memory loss. the quiz asks whether a person eats at least five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day 12. my total cholesterol is below 5.2 mmol/l. 13. my ldl (‘bad’) cholesterol is below 3.3 mmol/l. 14. i am not obese (less than 1.4 stone overweight for a woman; less than 2.1 stone overweight for a man). 15. i eat a mediterranean style diet   one high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds, with olive oil as the source of fat and little red meat. 16. instead of butter and margarine, i use olive oil and no trans fat spreads. 17. i have never smoked cigarettes. 18. i have normal blood pressure. 19. i do not have diabetes. 20. i do not have metabolic syndrome (high triglycerides, central obesity, and hypertension), also called insulin resistance syndrome. 21. i do not have a sleep disorder such as snoring or obstructive sleep apnea or untreated insomnia. 22. daily uncontrolled stress is not a problem for me. 23. i have a strong support group and enjoy many activities with friends, colleagues, and family members. 24. i have no problems with short or long term memory. 25. i’m ready to prevent alzheimer’s and am willing to do whatever it takes. and those taking part in the quiz are asked if they drink red wine or grape juice five times a week now add up how many questions you answered 'true' to... and see what your scores mean: 0 11: you have a high risk of alzheimer’s. add 10 years to your chronological age for your real brain age. right now, call your doctor and talk openly about health problems you have. ask if you’re doing all you can to manage these problems. 12 14: you have a moderate risk of alzheimer’s disease. add five years to your chronological age for your real brain age. while there’s not a lot of disparity between your real brain age and your chronological age, you need to understand the risks you have that increase the chances of alzheimer’s. 15 19: ok. your real brain age is the same as your chronological age. that said, you have a mild risk of alzheimer’s disease, so pay attention. carefully review the quiz to see what changes you need to make to your diet, exercise, mental stimulation or rest and relaxation. 20 22: not bad! subtract ten years from your chronological age for your real brain age. you are doing a lot to take care of your physical and mental health. check the specific questions that you marked ‘false’ and be sure to pay attention to changes you need to make. 23 25: congratulations, you are ageing well! subtract 15 years from your chronological age for your real brain age. you are presently healthy, with a youthful and productive mind. unless things change in your life, your risk of alzheimer’s disease is extremely low. it’s important that you review the quiz and circle any of the statements that indicate some work is needed. talk to your gp about your risk factors to see if treatment is indicated. having older relatives that have reached 80 years old without suffering memory loss can boost a person's brain age, the test suggests now... discover the tricks to keep your brain young work out your body it used to be said that ‘use it or lose it’ was the only way to keep your brain young. and there does seem to be an element of truth in that. people who challenge their brain with crossword puzzles or sudoku or by learning a new skill, such as a language, may help reduce the rate at which their brain ages, albeit only to a small degree. what seems to work even better is having a fit body. research shows that being physically fit will help keep your brain in good shape, too. even just moderate walking for 30 35 minutes a day has been shown to help reduce the rate at which the ageing brain shrinks. and the idea that you are what you eat applies to your brain as well as your body. eating a mediterranean style diet, high in fruit and vegetables and low in meat and saturated fat, may have a protective effect. that is because the antioxidants in the fruit and vegetables may help prevent normal damage to the brain cells. some experts believe that eating oily fish, rich in omega 3 oils, can also help reduce inflammation in the brain that may encourage damage to brain cells   although studies have not been conclusive on that. and refraining from smoking has a positive effect on a person's brain age get lots of sleep a lack of sleep is also brain ageing. a recent study found that people who work night shifts over a ten year period age their brain by the equivalent of six and half years. it is thought that the lack of sleep can hasten the death of brain cells. poor diet can also have an ageing effect. studies have found that just a week of eating junk food can lead to problems with memory. kick bad brain habits what is bad for your body is generally bad for your brain. smoking, being overweight or having high blood pressure or raised cholesterol are all likely to increase the speed at which your brain ages. this is because all of these affect the health of the blood vessels in your body   and of blood vessels in your brain. the brain needs a good flow of blood, and even a tiny micro bleed can lead to the death of cells. have a good social life an easy way to keep mentally young is to mix with others. people who stay ‘socially engaged’ seem to reduce the rate at which their brain ages. ‘this makes a difference   not a big one, but a difference nonetheless,’ says dr stuart ritchie. studies demonstrate that those with a good social life fare better on cognitive tests as they age. research has even shown that being part of a strong network can reduce the impact of alzheimer’s disease. socially active adults have healthier brain scans, too, perhaps because interacting with others stimulates the parts of the brain involved in planning and decision making. the test aims to predict a person's risk of developing alzheimer's disease, pictured above in mri scans relax, don’t overdo it while stimulation is good for the brain, too much challenge or too big a workload can be detrimental, as stress has a direct effect on brain function. research has found that stress is bad for brain cells and can disturb cognitive processes such as learning. the area of the brain called the hippocampus, where memories are formed, can be debilitated by chronic stress, while high levels of the stress hormone cortisone has a corrosive effect. it can speed up short term memory loss in older adults and wear down parts of the brain crucial for memory storage and processing. some research even suggests stress can accelerate the onset of alzheimer’s disease. yoga, exercise and meditation can help reduce stress and thereby reduce its negative effect on our brains. share what you think the comments below have not been moderated. the views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of mailonline. we are no longer accepting comments on this article. published by associated newspapers ltd part of the daily mail, the mail on sunday & metro media group

"sudoku number crunching could subtract 10 years off your brain age," the daily telegraph reports. "older adults who regularly do sudoku or crosswords have sharper brains that are 10 years younger," reports the mail online. in 2 linked studies, researchers asked people aged 50 to 93 to fill in online surveys, which included questions about whether they regularly did number puzzles (like sudoku) or word puzzles (such as crosswords). people also did online tests designed to test their thinking and memory (known as cognitive abilities). the researchers found that people who said they did puzzles regularly did better on the tests of cognitive ability. the researchers are quoted in the daily telegraph saying this suggests that regularly doing word and number puzzles helps keep our brains working better for longer. however, the research does not definitely show that doing puzzles made brains "sharper". or that doing puzzles staves off dementia in later life. it could be that people who have better cognitive abilities are more likely to do number or word puzzles in the first place. the researchers who carried out the studies were from the university of exeter, imperial college london and kings college london. the studies were funded by the national institute for health research. they were published in the peer reviewed journal geriatric psychiatry. the mail online and the telegraph were enthusiastic about the studies, and did not point out that they provide only a snapshot of one point in time   so we cannot tell whether doing puzzles might lead to better cognitive function later on, or the other way around. both media reports use phrases around years of "delay [in] brain ageing". these figures did not appear in the published research papers so it was not possible to critique these results. they seem to have come from a press release from the researchers. this was a cross sectional survey, completed by volunteers online. it is part of an ongoing research study called protect, which is looking at how the brain and cognitive abilities change with age, and how certain factors such as lifestyle are linked to this. the study will follow the volunteers up for at least 10 years, but the results published today come from their first assessment. cross sectional assessments like this can show what people are doing and test their abilities at one point in time. they cannot show us how one factor, such as doing puzzles, might affect another, such as cognitive function. researchers recruited people aged 50 and over, by advertising nationwide. they only recruited people who did not have dementia. people logged on to the study website and answered a series of questions about their lifestyle, including how often they did word puzzles or number puzzles. the volunteers then took a series of tests designed to show how good their level of cognitive function was across a range of areas including memory, speed of thinking, reasoning, processing information, decision making and ability to concentrate. of those who took part, 19,078 people answered the questions about puzzles and did at least one of the tests. the researchers separated out the results for word puzzles and number puzzles and reported them in 2 separate publications. the cognitive tests they used were: researchers looked at how people did on the tests, based on how often they said they did puzzles: researchers adjusted their results to take account of other factors that could skew the results including people's age, gender, education level and how often they took the test (people were asked to take tests up to 3 times over 7 days, and sometimes doing a test more often means you improve). differences in scores between the groups of people who did puzzles more or less frequently were small to medium in both studies. there were clear age differences, so that people who did puzzles more than once a day tended to be oldest, while those did them monthly were likely to be youngest (possibly because they were still working and so had less spare time). for the number puzzle study, researchers reported: for the word puzzle study, researchers reported similar results. the cognitive ability tests showed better results for those doing word puzzles more often and worse results for those who reported never doing them. the researchers said of the number puzzle results: "these findings have contributed to the growing body of literature that supports the case for regular use of activities that challenge the brain in order to promote cognitive stability in ageing." they point out in the research publication that because the study was cross sectional that the results "do not represent evidence that number puzzle use alone has caused the superior cognitive function", and that studies following people up over time are needed. we often use the phrase "use it or lose it" about the brain. previous studies have linked keeping mentally sharp in older age to things like education, career and keeping mentally active. while mental activity itself is not likely to prevent dementia causing diseases such as alzheimer’s disease, doctors think it may help build up a "cognitive reserve", meaning that people retain their abilities for longer, even if they do get a disease such as alzheimer’s. however, we do not have much evidence about which activities work to keep the brain functioning as we age. crosswords, sudoku puzzles and "brain training" websites have all been investigated, but the evidence so far is not strong. the ongoing protect study may provide more insight as it progresses, but the cross sectional data available at this stage is limited in what it can tell us. for example, we don't know if someone enjoyed doing puzzles because they had high levels of cognitive functioning, or if their cognitive functioning got better after they started doing puzzles. there are other things we need to bear in mind about the study. the results about how often people did puzzles were all self reported, so rely on people being accurate. we also don't know how long they'd been doing puzzles, and whether how often they did them had changed. also, people who responded to the survey were self selecting, so they might have been more likely to be puzzle fans than the general population. we do not know from this study whether puzzles help to protect your memory and brain power. however, there are some things you can do that can help reduce your chances of dementia, such as keeping physically active and eating a healthy diet. find out more about other ways to reduce your chances of dementia. zana is a deep tech healthcare company based in germany. from digital patient companions to voice analysis, we have been developing patient centric solutions since 2018.

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: corresponding author at: centre for medical image computing, department of computer science, ucl, 90 high holborn, london wc1v 6lj, uk. f.biondo@ucl.ac.uk received 2022 mar 12; revised 2022 jul 30; accepted 2022 aug 27; collection date 2022. this is an open access article under the cc by license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). brain age is an index of the brain’s ‘biological’ age based on t1 weighted mri data. memory clinic patients with older appearing brains have higher risk of dementia. results are independent of medical history, age, sex, mmse score and brain volumes. brain age has the potential to aid early detection of dementia in patients. keywords: brain age, machine learning, dementia, ageing, electronic health records, ecological validity abbreviations: brain pad, brain predicted age difference; futuredd, future dementia diagnosis patient group; nodd, no dementia diagnosis patient group; mmse, mini mental state examination biomarkers for the early detection of dementia risk hold promise for better disease monitoring and targeted interventions. however, most biomarker studies, particularly in neuroimaging, have analysed artificially ‘clean’ research groups, free from comorbidities, erroneous referrals, contraindications and from a narrow sociodemographic pool. such biases mean that neuroimaging samples are often unrepresentative of the target population for dementia risk (e.g., people referred to a memory clinic), limiting the generalisation of these studies to real world clinical settings. to facilitate better translation from research to the clinic, datasets that are more representative of dementia patient groups are warranted. we analysed t1 weighted mri scans from a real world setting of patients referred to uk memory clinic services (n = 1140; 60.2 % female and mean [sd] age of 70.0[10.8] years) to derive ‘brain age’. brain age is an index of age related brain health based on quantitative analysis of structural neuroimaging, largely reflecting brain atrophy. brain predicted age difference (brain pad) was calculated as brain age minus chronological age. we determined which patients went on to develop dementia between three months and 7.8 years after neuroimaging assessment (n = 476) using linkage to electronic health records. survival analysis, using cox regression, indicated a 3 % increased risk of dementia per brain pad year (hazard ratio [95 % ci] = 1.03 [1.02,1.04], p < 0.0001), adjusted for baseline age, age2, sex, mini mental state examination (mmse) score and normalised brain volume. in sensitivity analyses, brain pad remained significant when time to dementia was at least 3 years (hazard ratio [95 % ci] = 1.06 [1.02, 1.09], p = 0.0006), or when baseline mmse score ≥ 27 (hazard ratio [95 % ci] = 1.03 [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.0006). memory clinic patients with older‐appearing brains are more likely to receive a subsequent dementia diagnosis. potentially, brain age could aid decision making during initial memory clinic assessment to improve early detection of dementia. even when neuroimaging assessment was more than 3 years prior to diagnosis and when cognitive functioning was not clearly impaired, brain age still proved informative. these real world results support the use of quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers like brain age in memory clinics. the growing global burden of dementia motivates research to improve the early identification of people at highest risk of developing the disease. early dementia risk identification has important implications for future care planning, the timing of possible interventions and for stratified clinical trial enrolment. investigations into markers of dementia risk abound and include cognitive and behavioural markers (belleville et al., 2017, montero odasso et al., 2017) as well as biomarkers relating to fluid protein levels (e.g., blood or csf measures of amyloid, tau, neurofilament light) or brain structure, function or metabolism (humpel, 2011, jack et al., 2018). however, despite these promising findings, translation into clinical practice has been limited (gamo et al., 2017, cole, 2018). one potential explanation for this is a lack of ecological validity; do findings generalise from laboratory to natural (e.g., clinical) contexts? (burgess et al., 2006, kvavilashvili and ellis, 2004). poor ecological validity is often due to study samples not being representative of the real world population of interest. unrepresentative samples can be caused by selection bias, where participants with certain characteristics are more or less likely to be included in the study than others (simundić, 2013, prince, 2012). for example, recruiting patients from a dementia clinic whilst selecting controls from a primary care clinic may lead to potentially erroneous conclusions, such as arthritis and cataracts being more common in controls (broe et al., 1990). another example is the large prospective cohort study, uk biobank, which displays a ‘healthy volunteer’ bias whereby the included participants were found to be more health conscious compared with the general population (fry et al., 2017). the demographics of research volunteers may also not be representative of the target population, in terms of age, socio economic status and ethnicity. typically, dementia risk studies exclude participants with current or past comorbidities to reduce heterogeneity (dickerson et al., 2011, li et al., 2012, vemuri et al., 2010). however, comorbidities are common in people at risk of dementia (bunn et al., 2014, livingston et al., 2020, browne et al., 2017) and could play a role in disease progression, meaning that clinicians need to account for them in practice. properly representative research studies should strive to do the same. neuroimaging is a strong candidate for identifying early dementia risk, particularly mri, as it is routinely collected in clinical contexts (rathore et al., 2017). previous work has been consistent in reporting brain atrophy (vemuri et al., 2010, plant et al., 2010), cortical thinning (dickerson et al., 2011, li et al., 2012), microstructural abnormalities including white matter hyperintensities (prins and scheltens, 2015, zeestraten et al., 2017) and differences in functional connectivity (hohenfeld et al., 2018) as associated to future dementia. one promising approach to investigate health outcomes in neurodegenerative diseases is the brain age paradigm. brain age is an index of the brain’s biological age, with previous studies supporting the idea that ‘older’ appearing brains are indicative of a greater risk of age associated brain diseases and poor health outcomes, including mortality (cole and franke, 2017, kaufmann et al., 2019, han et al., 2020, franke and gaser, 2019, cole et al., 2018, cole et al., 2019, cole et al., 2020). brain age has also been associated with subsequent dementia in observational research cohorts (gaser et al., 2013, wang et al., 2019). when compared with other alzheimer’s disease biomarkers such as csf based amyloid and tau markers, or pet markers, brain age provided an independent contribution in identifying people who convert from mild cognitive impairment to alzheimer’s disease (popescu et al., 2020). a key limitation of these initial brain age studies is that the samples they use are unrepresentative of the general population at risk for dementia. research participants are likely to be more highly educated, have a higher iq, be less ethnically diverse and have fewer comorbidities than the general population (petersen et al., 2010). even in research studies that have aimed to obtain a representative sample (ikram et al., 2011), the aforementioned healthy volunteer bias is challenging to overcome and factors such as the threshold for contraindications for undergoing mri will differ between research and clinical settings. here, we sought to improve ecological validity using a large real world dataset of patients referred to memory clinics for mri assessment. this dataset is naturally representative as inclusion in the study was based on clinical need, not research related criteria. the opportunity to investigate those memory clinic patients referred for neuroimaging assessment is particularly relevant to clinical translation; an mri scan is typically requested in cases of diagnostic ambiguity and thus represents a key stage on the patient pathway. this retrospective study analysed structural mri scans of memory clinic patients whose future clinical status (i.e., presence or absence of dementia) was determined via linkage to electronic health records and we hypothesised that brain age would be significantly associated to a subsequent dementia diagnosis. this study analysed data from 1140 memory clinic patients who were referred for neuroimaging assessment, as part of routine care at the south london and the maudsley national health service foundation trust. the south london and the maudsley national health service foundation trust is one of the largest secondary mental healthcare providers in europe, serving over 1.36 million residents from predominantly four london boroughs (croydon, lambeth, lewisham and southwark) (stewart et al., 2009, perera et al., 2016). the earliest scan date in our sample is 28/01/2011. access to these data was obtained as part of two ongoing studies (brcmem and brcdem, biomedical research centre memory and dementia, studies). patients’ demographic, including self reported ethnicity, and clinical data were available from de identified electronic health records which were accessed via the clinical record interactive search based at the maudsley nihr biomedical research centre (stewart et al., 2009, perera et al., 2016, nihr brc, 2021). the clinical record interactive search is a clinical database with a robust data governance framework with ethical approval for secondary data analysis (oxford rec c reference 18/sc/0372). the clinical record interactive search provided linkage between electronic health records and the memory clinic neuroimaging data, as well as linkage to two other datasets, the hospital episode statistics (hes) and the office of national statistics (ons) mortality database. hes is a national dataset that contains data of outpatient appointments and hospital admissions at nhs hospitals in england (academy of medical royal colleges, 2011). the ons mortality database contains the date and cause of death for all deaths registered in england and wales (primary care mortality database, 2019). hes and the ons mortality datasets were used to supplement the electronic health records with diagnostic and mortality data. permission to access electronic health records, hes, the ons mortality database and the memory clinic neuroimaging dataset was granted via clinical record interactive search (reference 19 008) and accessed on 11/10/2019. informed consent for research use of neuroimaging data was obtained from the participants at time of assessment (brcmem and brcdem studies). data preparation was carried out via two routes, clinical and neuroimaging (fig. 1).this study was pre registered (aspredicted.org ref.26262) before data access. data pre processing pipeline. (a) memory clinic patients were classified as: “future dementia diagnosis” (orange) or “no dementia diagnosis” (grey). (b) neuroimaging data preparation: brainager was applied to t1 weighted mri scans to obtain a brain age estimate and normalised brain volume for each patient. quality control (qc) aimed to remove cases with image artefacts and occurred at two stages, before and after segmentation. (c) clinical data preparation: clinical data was retrieved across three databases, south london and maudsley hospital electronic health record (slam ehrs), hospital episodes statistics (hes) and office of national statistics (ons) which were accessed and linked to the neuroimaging data via the clinical record interactive search (cris). these databases provided diagnostic, demographic, cognitive and mortality data and facilitated labelling into “future dementia diagnosis” or “no dementia diagnosis”. patients who were diagnosed with dementia before, or up to 3 months after the neuroimaging assessment, were excluded. (d) merging the neuroimaging and clinical data: the final dataset (n = 1140) included only complete cases for the following variables: sex, age, brain age, normalised brain volume, mmse (mini mental state examination) and scanner information. (for interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) the clinical record interactive search enabled linkage of neuroimaging data to electronic health records, identified an initial total of 3666 patients. of these, 2472 were classified as “future dementia diagnosis” (futuredd) patients and 1194 as “no dementia diagnosis” (nodd) patients. classification was achieved by extraction of diagnostic information and/or cause of death across electronic health records. a dementia diagnosis was operationalised as a positive search result for the following terms: icd 10 codes f00 f03, g30 g32, “dementia”, “alzheimer’s disease”, “alzheimer” and “lewy”. the search was carried out in both structured and unstructured fields of the electronic health records. unstructured fields included free text clinical notes and the search was achieved via natural language processing applications developed and validated within the clinical record interactive search at the maudsley nihr biomedical research centre (perera et al., 2016, nihr brc, 2021). a negative search result classified the patient as nodd. for the futuredd patients, the diagnosis time was the date of the first instance of a dementia diagnosis after the neuroimaging assessment. for the nodd patients, the diagnosis time was the last instance of a diagnostic clinical entry after the neuroimaging assessment. a dementia diagnosis was detected before the neuroimaging assessment in 745 dementia patients (suggesting the diagnosis had been made based on clinical assessment after referral to the mri unit, but before the actual scan); these were excluded. seventy two nodd cases were excluded because their most recent non dementia diagnosis preceded the neuroimaging assessment. no exclusion were based on medical history (except dementia, as previously described). this deviates from our pre registered statement because, in retrospect, we opted to better capture the heterogeneity of memory clinic patients as this would increase ecological validity. as the goal of the study was to assess the value of brain age for early identification of future dementia, we opted to exclude patients for whom the mri scan was used diagnostically (as opposed to prognostically). to focus on prognostic identification of future dementia, we set a minimum threshold of 3 months between neuroimaging assessment and diagnosis, based on south london and the maudsley national health service foundation trust clinical guidelines of the maximum wait for a diagnosis. this reduced the sample from 2848 to 1386 patients. in addition to diagnostic information, the following variables ascertained at, or closest to, the neuroimaging assessment were obtained from the electronic health records: age, sex, mini mental state examination (mmse) and addenbrookes’ cognitive examination. the mmse and addenbrookes’ cognitive examination are brief cognitive functioning tests commonly used in the clinic and helpful at detecting dementia (burns et al., 1975, hodges and larner, 2016). the scores range from 0 to 30 and 0 100, respectively, with low scores indicating poor cognition. natural language processing applications (validated within the clinical record interactive search at the maudsley nihr biomedical research centre) (perera et al., 2016, nihr brc, 2021) were used to extract mmse and addenbrookes’ cognitive examination scores from both structured and unstructured electronic health records fields. in total, 3682 t1 weighted mri scans were accessed. these were acquired at 1.5 t using ge scanners (general electric, wi, us), with generally similar but not identical acquisition parameters (see appendix a). visual quality control was conducted to detect image artefacts; 63 scans were excluded due to poor quality such as motion artefacts and field inhomogeneities. brain age was calculated using brainager (v2.1), an open access software for generating brain predicted age from raw t1 weighted mri scans (https://github.com/james cole/brainager) (cole et al., 2018). brainager involves two main stages, pre processing and prediction. in the pre processing stage, images were segmented and normalised via spm12 software (https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm12/). for quality control, the fsl slicesdir function was used to generate two dimensional slices the segmentation and normalisation outputs; 123 images were excluded due to gross segmentation errors. normalised images were loaded into r (r core team, 2019) and converted to vectors. grey matter (gm), white matter (wm) and cerebrospinal fluid (csf) vectors were masked using a 0.3 threshold from the mean image template based on the brainager model training dataset and then combined. in the prediction stage, the brainager model was applied to the vectorised and masked study images to estimate a brain age score for each. brainager had been previously trained to predict age from normalised brain volumetric maps of n = 3377 healthy individuals from seven publicly available datasets using a gaussian processes regression (see appendix b for a list of training and testing datasets). using principal component analysis, the top principal components capturing 80 % of the variance in brain volumes were retained. the resulting rotation matrix for 435 principal components was then applied to the new imaging data to predict age. model performance (bivariate correlation between chronological age and brain predicted age, r; mean absolute error, mae) for internal and external validation was: n = 857, r = 0.973, mae = 3.933 years and n = 611, r = 0.947, mae = 4.90 years, respectively (https://github.com/james cole/brainager) (cole et al., 2018). for each image, the final output of brainager was a brain predicted age value with 95 % confidence intervals (ci). brain predicted age difference (brain pad) was calculated by subtracting chronological age from brain predicted age. volumetric measures of gm, wm and csf were generated by spm segment. normalised brain volume was calculated as the sum of gm and wm volumes, divided by the sum of gm, wm, and csf volumes. neuroimaging data were subsequently merged with the clinical data. out of 1386 cases, 81 were removed because of a missing brain age score or a different mri scanner and 165 were removed because of missing mmse scores. in summary, the initial sample of 3666 cases was finally reduced to 1140 patients after the various pre processing steps described above. the final sample (n = 1140) consisted of 664 futuredd and 476 nodd patients. to examine whether baseline brain pad was associated with subsequent dementia diagnosis (after at least 3 months), we ran a survival analysis using cox proportional hazards regression. cox regression allows for the modelling of the time to event (time to dementia), also referred to as survival or event time. for the nodd patients, time to dementia was right censored using the data of the most recent diagnostic clinical entry. the explanatory variables were brain pad alongside covariates of sex, age, age2, mmse score and normalised brain volume. age and age2 were included to address the bias due to the correlation between chronological age and brain pad (de lange and cole, 2020). the problem of multicollinearity between age and age2 was minimized by orthogonalizing these variables using the ‘poly’ function in r (r core team, 2019). next, we ran three sensitivity analyses by sub setting the sample data and re running the cox regression analysis. firstly, we examined whether brain pad was associated to the risk of dementia over a longer period, using a minimum duration of 3 years between neuroimaging assessment and diagnosis. a threshold of three years was chosen to optimise maximum duration whilst retaining a sufficiently large and balanced sample. secondly, we tested whether brain pad was associated to the risk of dementia in patients appearing to be largely cognitively unimpaired, by excluding those with baseline mmse scores below 27, a value previously proposed as a conservative cut off for dementia (o'bryant et al., 2008). in addition, considering that a few patients (n = 101) were younger than expected for a memory clinic patient group (e.g., age 27), we ran a third sensitivity analysis with the broad aim to exclude these younger cases by including only patients 55 years or older. finally, we tested for potential issues of multicollinearity in our main analysis by examining intercorrelations and variance inflation factors (vif) of the predictors. vif indicates how much the standard error of a predictor variable would change due to the inclusion of a potentially collinear covariate. the data in this study are not available due to restrictions pertaining to information that could compromise the privacy of the patients. however, the analyses code with extended derived data can be accessed here: https://github.com/biondof/barcode. baseline characteristics of the final sample (n = 1140) are described in table 1 (see appendix c for histograms). at the time of neuroimaging assessment, 60.18 % were female, the mean age was 69.99 (sd 10.80) years, the mean mmse score was 23.01 (sd 6.90), the mean addenbrookes’ cognitive examination score was 72.30 (sd 15.63) and the mean normalised brain volume was 0.7239 (sd 0.0591) litres. ethnicity data is depicted in appendix d. compared with the nodd group, the futuredd group had more females, was older, had lower mmse and addenbrookes’ cognitive examination scores and had smaller brain volumes. the median time to dementia diagnosis was 0.81 years (interquartile range 0.41 1.92). baseline sample characteristics. mmse = mini mental state examination score. time to dementia = gap in time (years) between baseline and the first instance of a dementia diagnosis in the ‘future dementia diagnosis’ patients whilst, for the ‘no dementia diagnosis’ patients this is not time to a dementia diagnosis as by group definition they did not receive such diagnosis, instead this is right censored using the most recent non dementia diagnostic event. ace = addenbrookes’ cognitive examination. group comparison = ‘no dementia diagnosis’ patients vs ‘future dementia diagnosis’ patients. associations between brain pad and time to dementia diagnosis (cox regression) are presented in table 2. a higher brain pad was significantly associated with time to a future dementia diagnosis: hazards ratio (hr) = 1.03 [ci = 1.02 1.04]. age, sex, mmse and normalised brain volume, but not age2, were also significantly associated with time to dementia (table 2). these results indicated that while keeping the covariates constant, every + 1 year of brain pad was accompanied with a 3 % relative increased risk of a future dementia diagnosis (p < 0.0001) which considered time to dementia (fig. 2). association of brain pad and all covariates, with incident dementia assessed by cox proportional hazards models, in the total study sample and in subsamples based on sensitivity analyses. hr = hazards ratio; ci = confidence intervals; n = number of ‘future dementia diagnosis’ patients; n = total number of patients; *** p value < 0.001; ** p value < 0.01; * p value < 0.05. all hr values are adjusted for covariates. †to minimize potential collinearity between age and age2 we orthogonalized these variables using the r function ‘poly’. however, a caveat with orthogonalized terms is that these can lead to uninterpretable coefficients. extended analyses outputs excluding polynomial terms can be accessed via the analyses code (see methods section 2.4 for the web link). kaplan meier plot for brain pad. this plot illustrates the proportion of patients who develop dementia based on a tertile split of brain pad score. at time 0 (time of the neuroimaging assessment, all patients are free of a dementia diagnosis. over time, patients with higher brain pad scores (pink) are more likely to get a dementia diagnosis and more rapidly than the ones with lower brain pad scores (blue). (for interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) assumptions for the cox regression model was met: the standardised residuals of the covariates were not correlated to event time indicating proportional hazards (χ2(6) = 11.5, p = 0.074). intercorrelations between covariates were low, aside from age and normalised brain volume (r = −0.45) and the vif values were <2 for all predictors (see appendix e). congruent with our main results, the nodd group’s brain age showed a relatively smaller deviation from their chronological age compared with the futuredd group, as illustrated in fig. 3a, with the line of best fit closely aligned to the identity line in green (left) but less so for the futuredd group (right). also, the deviation negatively correlated with age, likely driven by a regression to the mean effect, hence we accounted for this in our analyses by covarying for age and age2 (de lange and cole, 2020). critically, the brain pad scores were higher on average in the futuredd group, reflecting older looking brains when compared to the nodd group (fig. 3b). scatterplots of age, brain age and brain pad. the scatterplots show on the x axis, chronological age and on the y axis either brain age (top panel a) or brain pad (bottom panel b) split by group, “no dementia diagnosis” (nodd; grey and on the left) and “future dementia diagnosis” (futuredd; orange and on the right). (a) chronological age vs brain age: the identity line (green) shows the ideal case when chronological age matches the brain age estimate, y = x. lines of best fit (orange, grey) within each group are both positive showing that brain age estimates tend to be larger than chronological age for both groups of patients and in particular for the “future dementia diagnosis” group. (b) chronological age vs brain pad: the density plots on the right of each scatterplot illustrate the distribution of brain pad scores. the green line is set at brain pad = 0 (i.e., brain age matches chronological age). (for interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) sensitivity analysis i, restricted to patients with a time to diagnosis minimum of 3 years (n = 249), resulted in hr = 1.06 [ci = 1.02 1.09], which was statistically significant. this indicated that for every + 1 year of brain pad there was a 6 % relative increased risk of a future dementia diagnosis, even when the neuroimaging assessment preceded diagnosis by at least 3 years. sensitivity analysis ii restricted to patients with baseline mmse scores of above 26 (n = 471), resulted in hr = 1.03 (ci = 1.01 1.05) which was statistically significant. this indicated a 3 % increased risk of future dementia for every + 1 brain pad year, even when cognition was not clearly impaired. sensitivity analysis iii which included only patients with minimum 55 years of age, effectively reducing the sample by 101 cases, did not alter the main results. for sensitivity analyses results, see table 2. in this study, we hypothesised that brain age, a structural mri based biomarker, would be associated with subsequent dementia diagnoses in a real world sample of memory clinic patients. we found that every additional year of brain pad incurred a 3 % relative increased risk of a future dementia diagnosis. memory patient clinics with older appearing brains at baseline (time of neuroimaging assessment), were more likely to receive a subsequent dementia diagnosis, independent of sex, baseline age, mmse score and normalised brain volume. accordingly, a patient with + 5 brain pad years has 15 % added risk of a future dementia diagnosis compared to one with 0 brain pad years, whilst keeping the covariates equal (e.g., both are 65 year old females with similar mmse scores and normalised brain volumes). moreover, sensitivity analysis i, revealed that this risk increased to 6 % when the interval between neuroimaging assessment and dementia diagnosis was increased from a minimum of 3 months to at least 3 years. this could indicate that neuroimaging biomarkers are more informative in people further away from the development of manifest clinical symptoms of dementia. our findings are consistent with previous studies that used the brain age paradigm to investigate subsequent dementia (gaser et al., 2013, wang et al., 2019). for example, the wang et al. (2019) study showed that every year of brain pad had a 9 % increased risk of incident dementia, even when assessment preceded diagnosis by 5 years. also, the gaser et al. (2013) study reported a 10 % increased risk in converting from mild cognitive impairment to alzheimer’s disease with a 3 year follow up. some important differences exist between our study and these previous reports, particularly regarding sample characteristics. in wang and colleagues’ study, the sample was a population based cohort in which participants who developed dementia were compared to those who did not and hence the latter are likely to have included many healthy participants. instead, all our controls were patients who were referred to a memory clinic and who did eventually get a diagnosis, often a psychiatric or neurological one. hence, the case control contrast in the wang’s study is expected to be larger than ours given that patients with psychiatric and neurological disorders are reported to show larger brain pads than healthy participants (cole and franke, 2017, kaufmann et al., 2019, cole et al., 2019). in our study, brain pad remained significantly associated to future dementia despite our sample including co morbidities and complex medical histories. another important finding came from sensitivity analysis ii. in patients with normal cognitive functioning (mmse ≥ 27), brain pad remained significantly linked to progression to a dementia diagnosis. it is precisely when routine assessments in the memory clinic yield ambiguous results that the clinician may consider other more invasive or expensive tests to aid decision making. this further illustrates the potential role of quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers in the clinic for augmenting clinical decision making. for example, it is common for memory clinic patients with poor cognition to have ‘age appropriate atrophy’ reported by a radiologist on qualitative assessment of their mri scan. quantitative neuroimaging analysis may help reconcile such findings. in this study, we did not seek to demonstrate that brain pad is superior to the other covariates (age, mmse, normalised brain volume, sex) in the association with risk of future dementia, instead we aimed to examine whether brain pad is valuable in addition to these established factors. chronological age had the highest hazard ratio of the predictors (see table 2), but brain pad remained significant even when including age and other covariates in the model, supporting the idea of brain pad having additional value when modelling dementia risk. the intercorrelations and vif values of the model variables did not indicate problematic collinearity. these statistics provide reassurance that our model interpretation that brain pad adds value to the risk estimation of future dementia, is sound. the mri scan may have been used for different purposes along the patient pathway. for example, diagnostic support, prognosis, and exclusion of structural lesions or differential diagnosis. however, it is important to note that in our clinical experience, a dementia diagnosis is primarily based on a clinical and cognitive assessment, not an mri scan. given that the aim of this study was to test whether an mri scan is indicative of risk of a future diagnosis of dementia, we wanted to minimise inclusion of cases where the mri scan was used to inform a diagnosis at the time of scan. to guard against this, first we excluded cases where a dementia diagnosis was made before time of mri scan. second, we set a threshold of at least 3 months after time of scan, such that patients diagnosed with dementia before this time were also excluded. this 3 month threshold is the expected timeframe to receive a diagnosis based on our local clinical guidelines. thirdly, as an additional conservative measure we ran a sensitivity analysis with a 3 year threshold, and the hazard ratio for brain pad remained the same. in summary, mri may be used to inform a diagnosis of dementia at different timepoints, however this study indicates that neuroimaging biomarkers like brain age may provide additional prognostic information, even in highly heterogeneous clinical populations. importantly, given the common use of t1 weighted volumetric mri in memory clinics, the brain age biomarker can be provided at no additional financial cost or inconvenience to the patient. using mri to detect early risk of dementia has other clear advantages (johnson et al., 2012). mri can provide dementia specific information on patterns of atrophy, unlike blood or csf biomarkers. mri is more widely available, cheaper and less invasive than pet and involves no radiation, unlike ct. moreover, mri derived biomarkers are objective, quantitative and exempt from practice effects, unlike clinical and cognitive assessments. nonetheless, mri may not be accessible to all patients, particularly those with contraindications, claustrophobia or severe illness. other disadvantages include high demand leading to limited availability, cost, and the limited diagnostic and prognostic precision in certain cases. one major strength of this study is having used data from pre existing standard memory clinic rather than by experimental, and hence, artificial design. this confers two main advantages. the first is added ecological validity. this means that our findings are more representative of our target population   memory clinic patients. our sample is drawn from south east london and the population is characterised by a relatively diverse ethnic background (see appendix d). this suggests our findings are robust to ethnic differences. while south east london is not fully representative of nationwide memory clinic patients (perera et al., 2016), the ethnic and socio economic diversity are at least equal to or greater than many other parts of the uk. crucially, our dataset overcomes selection bias, a bigger driver of unrepresentativeness and poor generalisability. there was no selection per se, other than the clinical decision to refer the patient for neuroimaging assessment based potential dementia risk   exactly the target population for markers aimed at early dementia identification. secondly, it illustrates the feasibility of implementing clinical models involving quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers, which could be automatically integrated with other clinical data (e.g., radiology reports or electronic health records). connecting neuroimaging biomarkers like brain age with electronic health records has broad potential; it could aid the memory clinician with prognosis and support clinical trials including stratification, staging of disease severity and outcome markers (jack et al., 2018) and, neuropsychiatric research at large (kaufmann et al., 2019, franke and gaser, 2019, cole et al., 2019). to contextualise our findings, we considered how the effect size of the risk conferred by brain pad compared to common dementia risk factors. the study by gottesman et al. (2017) reports hrs (ci) for incident dementia of 1.14 (0.99 1.31), 1.39 (1.22 1.59) and 1.77 (1.53 2.04) respectively for obesity, hypertension and diabetes relative to normal healthy conditions. comparing these to brain pad is not straightforward considering study differences such as sample characteristics and covariate adjustments. however, for purely illustrative purposes, one can convert these hrs to brain pad years based on our model, by subtracting 1 from both the disease hr and brain pad’s hr and then dividing the former by the latter (e.g., [1.14 1] / [1.03 1] = 4.7), this would give + 4.7, +11.8 and + 20.5 brain pad years, respectively. broadly speaking, this would mean that someone with a brain looking 11.8 years older than their chronological age would have a similar long term risk of incident dementia to someone classified as having hypertension. memory clinic patients may present with complex medical histories. for example, they may display poor cognition at baseline, as reflected by low mmse scores, due to conditions other than a dementia diagnosis, such as stroke, tumour or psychosis. in fact, such differential diagnosis is a key clinical challenge. our model is agnostic to the patient’s medical history (aside from excluding those with dementia diagnosis at or before baseline). embracing the real world heterogeneity of memory clinic patients was a deliberate choice in our study design, which aimed to maximise the model’s clinical utility by minimizing the information required to calculate dementia risk. various limitations of this study should be acknowledged. the first pertains to false negatives and false positives. the nodd group was defined on a negative search result for a dementia diagnosis, however, it is possible that some developed dementia that was unrecorded. nevertheless, if our sample did contain such false negatives then, the contrast between futuredd versus nodd would reduce and consequently, our current finding would reflect a more conservative version than its true value. false positives   mistaken cases of futuredd patients   are less likely though not impossible, despite constant efforts at improving validation of information extracted from electronic health records (perera et al., 2016, nihr brc, 2021). future efforts in this direction could include enhanced triangulation of observations by linking electronic health records to additional databases, such as general practitioner records. a second limitation pertains to the precision of the timestamps of electronic health records events given the lack of consistency concerning whether the date reflects the time of the clinical event or the time the clinical event was recorded on the system. however, we assume that any such inconsistency would occur randomly across groups and not by a large interval. thirdly, brain age was calculated using only one modality of structural mri scans. although a t1 weighted brain age model has been extensively validated across many studies it leaves a rich resource of common clinical scans, t2 weighted ones, unused. a multimodal brain age model could improve the utility of this biomarker (cole, 2020). another caveat is that we cannot rule out that using a different algorithm to predict age would alter the findings. however, any differences are unlikely to be substantial given that published work using a similar voxel based pca brain age approach showed that different regression models did not greatly impact performance accuracy (baecker et al., 2021). moreover, the brainager model used in this study has been tested and validated previously, with a track record of high accuracy (clausen et al., 2022). in addition, wang and colleagues reported similar findings whereby brain pad related to subsequent dementia, using a convolutional neural network model (wang et al., 2019). finally, although strength of the brain age paradigm is in the simplicity of the multivariate to univariate transformation (i.e., many voxels reduced to a single brain age value), ongoing developments in brain age modelling provide localised brain age estimates (popescu et al., 2021) that could allow for novel composite brain age scores of brain regions known to be critical to dementia (e.g., temporal lobe versus whole brain). overall, our findings demonstrate the value of using brain age as a sensitive biomarker that has the potential to be used early‐on in memory clinics to detect patients at higher risk of developing dementia. this ‘real world’ study further paves the way for the role of quantitative neuroimaging in bridging the gap between basic research and clinical applications, in particular, prognostication of dementia syndromes. francesca biondo: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, formal analysis, investigation, writing   original draft, visualization. amelia jewell: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, resources. megan pritchard: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, resources. dag aarsland: conceptualization, writing   review & editing. claire j. steves: conceptualization, writing   review & editing. christoph mueller: conceptualization, writing   review & editing. james h. cole: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, supervision, writing   original draft. jhc is a scientific advisor to and shareholder in brain key and claritas healthtech, both medical image analysis companies. the other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. this research was funded in whole by the wellcome trust [213996/z/18/z]. for the purpose of open access, the author has applied a cc by public copyright licence to any author accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. cm receives salary support from the national institute for health research (nihr) biomedical research centre at south london and maudsley nhs foundation trust and king's college london. cjs receives salary support from medical research council, the wellcome trust and the chronic disease research foundation. this paper represents independent research partly funded by the national institute for health research (nihr) biomedical research centre at south london and maudsley nhs foundation trust and king’s college london. the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the nhs, the nihr or the department of health and social care. francesca biondo, email: f.biondo@ucl.ac.uk. james h. cole, email: james.cole@ucl.ac.uk. mri acquisition parameters. all 1140 mri scans were t1 weighted and obtained from the same ge 1.5 t mri scanner (scanner a) at the department of neuroimaging, institute of psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience, king’s college london, uk. the mri acquisition parameters varied slightly with a total of 22 types which are presented in table a.1 including the count for each type. mri acquisition parameter types. brainager. detailed information on the brainager model can be retrieved here (https://github.com/james cole/brainager). the brainager model for v2.1 was trained on n = 3377 healthy individuals (mean age = 40.6 years, sd = 21.4, age range 18 92 years) from seven publicly available datasets (see list below) and tested on n = 857 (mean age = 40.1 years, sd = 21.8, age range 18 90 years). training datasets: australian imaging, biomarker & lifestyle flagship study of ageing (aibl) dallas lifespan brain study (dlbs) brain genome superstruct project (gsp) ixi nathan kline institute rocklands sample enhanced open acces series of imaging studies 1 (oasis 1) southwest university adult lifespan dataset (sald) testing dataset: camcan below is a pictorial version of baseline characteristics as presented in table 1. ethnic background. distribution of total sample split by 15 ethnic background groupings excluding two response categories for which there were no data available (“not stated” and “null”). correlation matrix of model variables. values indicate pearson’s correlation coefficients. we assessed the variance inflation factor (vif) of the predictors in our model (table e.2). vif indicates how much the standard error of a predictor variable would change due to the inclusion of a potentially collinear covariate. we note that the vif is<2 for all predictors. generally, vif values of above 10 or 5 are thought to indicate problematic amounts of collinearity with others suggesting 2.5 as a more conservative threshold (james et al., 2013, johnston et al., 2018). variance inflation factors (vif). the authors do not have permission to share data. this section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. the authors do not have permission to share data. articles from neuroimage : clinical are provided here courtesy of elsevier connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: corresponding author at: department of psychological and brain sciences, drexel university, 3201 chestnut st, philadelphia, pa 19104, usa. fz53@drexel.edu (f. zhang). issue date 2023 dec. biological age and brain age estimated using biological and neuroimaging measures have recently emerged as surrogate aging biomarkers shown to be predictive of diverse health outcomes. as aging underlies the development of many chronic conditions, surrogate aging biomarkers capture health at the whole person level, having the potential to improve our understanding of multimorbidity. our study investigates whether elevated biological age and brain age are associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity using a large dataset from the midlife in the united states refresher study. ensemble learning is utilized to combine multiple machine learning models to estimate biological age using a comprehensive set of biological markers. brain age is obtained using gaussian processes regression and neuroimaging data. our study is the first to examine the relationship between accelerated brain age and multimorbidity. furthermore, it is the first attempt to explore how biological age and brain age are related to multimorbidity in mental health. our findings hold the potential to advance the understanding of disease accumulation and their relationship with aging. keywords: biological age, brain age, multimorbidity, mental health multimorbidity, machine learning multimorbidity, coexistence of 2 or more chronic conditions in an individual, is increasingly common especially among older adults and poses substantial public health challenges (suls et al., 2016). multimorbidity differs from a related term comorbidity in the sense that comorbidity has a primary condition of interest and examines the co occurring of other conditions with this primary condition (johnston et al., 2019). medical research has been primarily single disease focused, which considers 1 disease at a time and sometimes the comorbidity of a particular disease of interest (suls et al., 2016). multimorbidity offers an effective framework for examining the co occurrence of multiple chronic conditions without the need to define a specific primary condition (fabbri et al., 2015). aging is a universally experienced process, which underlies the development of most chronic conditions. the mechanism that drives the aging process may also drive multiple age related chronic conditions. in this sense, aging represents a key risk factor for multimorbidity and a shared pathway across many chronic diseases (fabbri et al., 2015; liu et al., 2018). in recent years, biological age has been proposed as a surrogate biomarker to capture the process of aging (klemera and doubal, 2006; levine, 2012). at the individual level, biological age can deviate from chronological age, with elevated biological age indicating higher risk for aging related diseases (wu et al., 2021). more importantly, this type of surrogate aging biomarker allows researchers to examine health at the whole person level, not unique to a specific health condition. however, currently only 3 studies have investigated the relationship between biological age and multimorbidity. biological age obtained from regression based models with a set of clinical markers was found to explain a significant amount of variability in multimorbidity defined based on 5 chronic diseases in middle aged and older adults (crimmins et al., 2021). another study reported a significant correlation between multimorbidity and a biological age metric estimated based on blood immune biomarkers in older adults (sayed et al., 2021). additionally, a strong association was reported between the number of diseases and a summary aging measure obtained by regressing the hazard of mortality on a set of clinical markers and chronological age in adult (liu et al., 2018). more research is needed to examine biological age estimated from a broad range of clinical/biochemical markers and multimorbidity defined based on more categories of chronic conditions. in addition, a number of important methodological issues need to be clarified, such as how to address the estimation bias that biological age tends to be overestimated for younger participants and underestimated for older participants in regression based models. brain age estimated by machine learning models and neuroimaging data is another surrogate biomarker on aging (niu et al., 2020, 2022). similar to biological age, brain age allows us to examine health as an integrative process, not specific to a particular health condition. a comparison of an individual’s brain age and chronological age can inform us whether an individual’s brain ages faster or slower than it should. studies have shown that brain age is powerful in predicting a broad range of health outcomes, such as cognitive functioning, stroke, diabetes, alzheimer’s disease, smoking, alcohol, and mortality (cole, 2020; cole et al., 2017a, 2017b; wang et al., 2019). however, no study has examined the relationship between brain age and multimorbidity. in addition, it is unclear whether the relationship between these aging biomarkers (i.e., biological age, brain age) and multimorbidity is moderated by sex. studies have reported that the prevalence of multimorbidity differs by sex, notably a higher rate in women (marengoni et al., 2011). understanding how the influence of biological age and brain age on multimorbidity differs by sex may allow us to develop more personalized strategies to prevent or delay multimorbidity. to answer these questions, we first estimate biological age using machine learning models and a comprehensive set of clinical and biochemical markers including bmi (body mass index), blood hemoglobin, and c reactive protein. we then investigate whether the elevated biological age is related to an increased risk of multimorbidity defined based on 13 different categories of chronic conditions. then, we examine whether accelerated brain age estimated by machine learning models and neuroimaging data is associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity. in addition, we test whether the relationship between multimorbidity and the surrogate aging biomarker (e.g., biological age and brain age) is moderated by sex. lastly, multimorbidity in mental health has been relatively under researched, despite its advantage in understanding clinical complexity in psychiatry (i.e., having multiple psychiatric and/or addictive disorders in an individual) (bhalla et al., 2018; langan et al., 2013). to this end, we explore the relationship between these surrogate aging biomarkers and mental health multimorbidity. findings from our study hold the potential to improve our understanding of multimorbidity and its major risk factor aging, which may shed the light on new strategies to improve the treatment and clinical management of multimorbidity. we used data from the midlife in the united states (midus) refresher study (ryff et al., 2017). a national sample of 4085 adults, aged 25 74 years, was studied between 2011 and 2016. participants recruited through random digit dialing and a separate black/african american sample from milwaukee were included in the analyses. the midus refresher biomarker project obtained comprehensive biological assessments from 863 respondents who participated in the midus refresher project. additionally, the midus refresher neuroscience project collected neuroscience assessments from 138 respondents who also completed the biomarker project. detailed sample descriptions can be found in other published papers (boylan et al., 2020; radler, 2014). to estimate biological age, we used data from all participants in the midus refresher biomarker project (n = 863). to obtain brain age, we included data from all participants in the midus refresher neuroscience project (n = 138). we assessed multimorbidity using a dichotomous variable, indicating whether having 2 or more of the following conditions. similar to other studies that examined multimorbidity using midus data, we considered 13 different categories of chronic conditions including diabetes, asthma, hypertension, hiv or aids, tuberculosis, neurological disorders, stroke, ulcer, arthritis, ever had cancer, heart trouble, obesity, and/or high cholesterol levels (friedman et al., 2015; shorey and friedman, 2018). this dichotomous variable was coded as 0 if the subject had single or no condition and 1 if the subject had 2 or more of the 13 chronic conditions in the past 12 months. we computed multimorbidity for all participants in the biomarker project. additionally, we examined multimorbidity in mental health, a binary variable indicating whether having 2 or more of the psychiatric and addictive conditions, including depression (rottenberg et al., 2019), anxiety disorder (disabato et al., 2021), alcohol abuse (ransome et al., 2017), and drug misuse (kim et al., 2020). based on studies that estimated biological age using clinical and biochemical markers (belsky et al., 2015; crimmins et al., 2021; klemera and doubal, 2006), we identified a set of fairly standard markers that are commonly collected in a clinical exam. here is the complete list of biological measures used: bmi, waist hip ratio, blood pressure (systolic), hdl cholesterol, ldl cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, hba1c, blood fasting glucose, blood fasting insulin like growth factor 1 (igf1), c reactive protein, creatinine, peak flow, blood serum msd il10, and bone specific alkaline phosphatase. we built machine learning models to estimate biological age with the list of biological measures described above. to do so, we first identified a subset of healthy participants without any of the physical and mental health conditions listed above (n = 193, a mean age of 45.60 years, sd = 12.73 years, age range 25 74 years). the healthy cohort was randomly split in half with 50% of the data as a training set and the remaining 50% as an independent test set. we then built machine learning models with the list of biological measures to predict chronological age using the training set. we took an ensemble learning approach, which is an effective tool to combine multiple machine learning models to achieve improved prediction accuracy, compared to a single machine learning model. in particular, we combined 3 popular machine learning models including support vector regression (smola and schölkopf, 2004), elastic net (zou and hastie, 2005), and gaussian processes regression (rasmussen and williams, 2006) using a general linear model to create a linear combination of models as implemented in the r package caretensemble version 2.0.1 (deane mayer and knowles, 2016; kuhn, 2008). support vector regression generalizes the idea of support vector machine to a regression setting. in this study, we used a linear kernel and tuned the cost parameter using 10 fold cross validation (cv) within the training set. elastic net is a type of regularized regression model with both l1 and l2 norms. the tuning parameters alpha and lambda were chosen to minimize cv error. we conducted gaussian processes regression with radial basis function kernel and optimized the tuning parameter sigma using 10 fold cv. biological measures were standardized before running machine learning models. for each of the biological measures, we subtracted the mean and then divide by its standard deviation in the training set. for the test set, we standardized each biological measure based on its mean and standard deviation computed from the training set. all 15 biological measures listed in section 2.3 were used in the ensemble model. the trained model was then applied to the independent test set of healthy participants to predict their chronological age. the predicted chronological age is the so called biological age. the underlying assumption is that the biological age is on average the same as the chronological age for healthy participants. in this sense, we would expect an accurate model to achieve a small mean absolute error (mae) from a test set of healthy participants. one important methodological issue that has not been made clear in the literature of biological age estimation is that a valid metric for evaluating model performance needs to be computed from an independent test set. this is because a model can easily overfit a training set. another key methodological issue to note is that biological age can deviate from chronological age in disease groups. thus, models for predicting biological age should be built with healthy participants. though model training should be done with a healthy cohort, the trained model for estimating biological age can be applied to disease groups. we also applied our trained model to predict biological age for participants with at least 1 of the 13 categories of chronic conditions (n = 630). we computed a difference score by subtracting chronological age from the estimated biological age, called the biological age gap. a positive biological age gap means accelerated biological aging. to correct for age related bias, we conducted a general linear model to regress the biological age gap on chronological age and computed the residualized/adjusted biological age gap. all structural scans were acquired using a 3t scanner (mr750, ge healthcare, waukesha, wi) with an 8 channel head coil. these data were derived from bravo t1 weighted structural images with tr (repetition time) = 8.2 ms, te (echo time) = 3.2 ms, flip angle = 12°, matrix = 256 × 256, fov (field of view) = 256 mm, slices = 160, slice thickness = 1 mm, and inversion time = 450 ms. the estimates of brain age were computed using the brainager (https://github.com/james cole/brainager) model as described by cole et al. (2017a, 2017b). in brief, gaussian processes regression was built using raw t1 weighted mri (magnetic resonance image) data from a large set of healthy adults (n = 2001, age range 18 90 years) to predict chronological age, which was reported to achieve high prediction accuracy. the software brainager takes raw mri data, which is then minimally preprocessed automatically by the software itself. the predicted chronological age based on brain imaging data is the so called brain predicted age, or brain age in short. as discussed in previous publications from our group and others, brain age is often overestimated in younger individuals and underestimated in older individuals (cole et al., 2017a, 2017b; liang et al., 2019; niu et al., 2020, 2022; smith et al., 2019). this brainager model also corrects for age related prediction bias by regressing brain age on chronological age. the trained model from cole et al. (2017a, 2017b) was applied to raw t1 weighted mri data collected in the neuroscience project (n = 138) to obtain their brain age. moreover, we calculated a difference score between brain age and chronological age, called the brain age gap. a positive brain age gap indicates accelerated brain aging. to examine whether accelerated biological aging was associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity, we conducted logistic regression with the residualized biological age gap as the independent variable and multimorbidity as the outcome variable. in this analysis, we pooled the test set of healthy subject and the remaining participants with at least 1 chronic condition together (total sample size n = 726). we also controlled for chronological age, sex, race, and education. race was coded as a binary variable, representing white and non white. the non white group included a few race categories including african american, native american, asian, native hawaiian or pacific islander, and other. these categories were combined due to their relatively small sample sizes. education was categorized as 3 levels including high school or general educational development (ged), some college, and college degree or more. similarly, logistic regression was used to examine whether advanced brain aging (i.e., a positive residualized brain age gap) was related to an increased risk of multimorbidity. since the brain age prediction model was trained using a different data set, we included all participants from the midus refresher neuroscience project with structural mri data available (n = 127) in the logistic regression. the same set of covariates was controlled for in this analysis. in addition, we examined the potential moderating effect of sex on the relationship between multimorbidity and biological age gap. we also conducted separate moderation analyses to test whether the association between multimorbidity and brain age gap depended on sex. lastly, we conducted exploratory analyses to examine the relationship between mental health multimorbidity and each of the 2 surrogate aging biomarkers (i.e., biological age gap, brain age gap). to account for the potential confounding effect of chronological age, we used residualized biological and brain age gap and included chronological age as a covariate in all analyses examining multimorbidity. descriptive statistics for the study sample is shown in table 1. participants in this study aged between 25 and 76 years with a mean age of 50.84 years (sd = 13.41 years). the sample was primarily non hispanic white, and 52.1% were female. of the study sample, 52.2% had a college degree or more and 42.8% had 2 or more chronic conditions (i.e., multimorbidity). the proportion of mental health multimorbidity was 9.7%. among the participants in the neuroscience project (n = 138, age range: 25 74 years), 40.6% had 2 or more chronic conditions and 10.1% had mental health multimorbidity. subject characteristics, the midus refresher biomarker project (n = 863) key: ged, general educational development. in the training set, biological age estimated by the machine learning model was correlated with chronological age (r = 0.81, mae = 7.09 years) before bias adjustment. as shown in fig. 1a, biological age was overestimated for younger participants and underestimated for older participants. due to this systematic difference between the estimated biological age and chronological age, the biological age gap was negatively associated with chronological age (fig. 1b). however, we expect the biological age gap is on average 0 among healthy participants. to account for this systematic negative association between biological age gap and chronological age, we regressed biological age gap on chronological age and computed the residualized/adjusted biological age gap (i.e., bias correction step). as shown in fig. 1c, the adjusted biological age gap was not associated with chronological age and was on average very close to 0. when investigating biological age or biological age gap as a potential biomarker for aging, it is essential to account for this systematic bias by either computing the residualized biological age (gap) and/or controlling for chronological age. otherwise, the effect of biological age (gap) can be confounded by chronological age. scatterplots of biological age/(adjusted) biological age gap (y axis) and chronological age (x axis) with fitted regression lines and 95% confidence bands for the training and test sets of healthy adults. the trained machine learning model was then applied to a test set of healthy adults to evaluate model performance. the systematic difference in the estimated biological age and chronological age was also observed in the test set (fig. 1d). the model prediction performance on the test set (r = 0.54, mae = 9.08 years) was less accurate than what was achieved on the training set, which is to be expected in a train test split. the difference in prediction performance between the training and test sets is common in machine learning evaluations and can be attributed to the fact that a trained model is evaluated on new, unseen data during testing. this highlights the importance of reporting model performance from both the training and test sets since reporting the training mae alone would not allow researchers to evaluate the model generalizability to new, unseen data. it is also worth noting that a high correlation coefficient and a small mae imply better prediction performance only when we examine a cohort of healthy participants. feature importance value was computed from the ensemble learning model to rank the biological markers in terms of their contribution for estimating biological age (fig. 2). feature importance for each machine learning model was calculated using the root mean squared error. these metrics were then scaled to collectively sum up to 100, enabling standardized comparison. the overall variable importance was computed by a weighted average, where feature importance from each individual model was averaged based on their corresponding weight in the overall ensembled model, as implemented in the function varimp in the r package caretensemble version 2.0.1 (deane mayer and knowles, 2016; kuhn, 2008). this results in a standardized metric representing variable importance, considering both individual model contributions and their weights in the ensemble. the top predictors were total cholesterol, blood fasting igf1, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and blood pressure. creatinine was ranked as the least informative biological marker for estimating biological age. feature importance yielded by the machine learning models for the list of biological markers used to estimate biological age. the x axis is the standardized unit of feature importance out of 100. the brainager model trained with a large set of healthy adults by cole and colleagues (2017) was applied to the midus refresher study neuroscience project. the resulting model performance of the trained brainager model on our midus test data was r = 0.79 and mae = 6.1 years. given that participants in the neuroscience project included the ones with chronic health conditions, the deviation from chronological age could indicate accelerated aging, which was examined in the following sections. similar to what we observed for biological age, brain age was overestimated in younger participants and underestimated in older participants (fig. 3 left panel). this systematic bias has been discussed in our previous publications (liang et al., 2019; niu et al., 2020). though a regression based bias correction step was conducted automatically by the brainager model to account for a statistical dependency on chronological age (cole et al., 2017a, 2017b), we still observed some overestimation and underestimation in the bias adjusted brain age (fig. 3 right panel, r = −0.31). therefore, in the subsequent analyses examining multimorbidity, we included chronological age as a covariate to further adjust for age dependency and control for the potential confounding effect of chronological age. scatterplots of brain age/brain age gap (y axis) and chronological age (x axis) with fitted regression lines and 95% confidence bands for the test set. as shown in table 2, results from logistic regression found that a larger biological age gap was significantly associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity after controlling for sex, chronological age, race, and education (b = 0.06, p = 0.007, or (odds ratio) = 1.07, 95% ci (confidence interval) [1.02, 1.12]). among the covariates, higher chronological age (b = 0.13, p < 0.001, or = 1.14, 95% ci [1.09, 1.19]) and being non white (b = 0.45, p = 0.022, or = 1.57, 95% ci [1.07, 2.30]) were significantly related to an increased risk of multimorbidity. having a college degree or more was negatively associated with the risk of multimorbidity (b = −0.76, p < 0.001, or = 0.48, 95% ci [0.30, 0.73]). results from the logistic regression models for examining the association between the residualized biological age gap and multimorbidity and for examining the moderating effect of sex specifically, we used bias adjusted (i.e., residualized) biological age gap and included chronological age as a covariate. multimorbidity is defined based on 13 different categories of chronic conditions. significance values are indicated as p value in the table. findings on the association between brain age gap and multimorbidity were summarized in table 3. the brain age gap was not significantly associated with the risk of multimorbidity (b = −0.02, p = 0.551, or = 0.98, 95% ci [0.92, 1.04]). among the covariates, chronological age was positively associated with the risk of multimorbidity (b = 0.11, p < 0.001, or = 1.11, 95% ci [1.07, 1.17]) while having a college degree or more was negatively related to the risk of multimorbidity (b = −1.36, p = 0.021, or = 0.26, 95% ci [0.08, 0.79]). results from the logistic regression models for examining the association between the residualized brain age gap and multimorbidity and for examining the moderating effect of sex multimorbidity is quantified using 13 different categories of chronic conditions. significance values are indicated as p value in the table. the effect of the biological age gap on the risk of multimorbidity was not significantly moderated by sex (b = 0.003, p = 0.850, or = 1.00, 95% ci [0.97, 1.03]). including the interaction term between biological age gap and sex in the logistic regression did not change the pattern and significance of other variables (see the last 2 columns of table 2). in contrast, the brain age gap by sex interaction term was statistically significant and was negatively associated with the risk of multimorbidity (b = −0.19, p = 0. 009, or = 0.83, 95% ci [0.71, 0.95]). this suggests that the effect of the brain age gap on the risk of multimorbidity depended on sex and was weaker among females compared to males. the inclusion of the interaction term did not change the pattern and significance of other variables in the logistic regression model (refer to the last 2 columns of table 3). in the exploratory analyses, we found that the biological age gap was positively associated with the risk of mental health multimorbidity after controlling for sex, chronological age, race, and education (b = 0.07, p = 0.046, or = 1.07, 95% ci [1.00, 1.15]). among the covariates, having some college education was negatively related to the risk of mental health multimorbidity (b = −0.66, p = 0.031, or = 0.52, 95% ci [0.28, 0.94]). additionally, having a college degree or more was associated with a decreased risk of mental health multimorbidity (b = −1.17, p < 0.001, or = 0.31, 95% ci [0.17, 0.57]). similarly, the brain age gap was found to be positively related to the risk of mental health multimorbidity after controlling for sex, chronological age, race, and education (b = 0.10, p = 0.038, or = 1.10, 95% ci [1.01, 1.22]). all other covariates were not statistically significant. this is likely due to the fact that the sample size of the neuroscience project is much smaller compared to the biomarker project (see “methods” section). in this study, we estimated biological age using machine learning models and a comprehensive set of biological markers collected from a large number of adults in the midus refresher sample. we showed that elevated biological age was associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity defined based on 13 different categories of chronic conditions. in addition, it is the first study to examine the relationship between accelerated brain age and multimorbidity. we also investigated whether the relationship between the surrogate aging biomarkers and multimorbidity was moderated by sex. though the brain age gap was not associated with the risk of multimorbidity, the interaction between brain age gap and sex was significantly negatively related to the risk of multimorbidity, suggesting that the effect of the brain age gap on the risk of multimorbidity was weaker among females compared to males. lastly, in our exploratory analyses, we found that elevated biological age and accelerated brain age were both associated with an increased risk of mental health multimorbidity. these findings are helpful to improve our understanding of the accumulation of physical and mental health conditions in an individual and sex related differences in aging. though varied in the methods of estimating biological age and quantifying multimorbidity, our study obtained findings consistent with previous studies that elevated biological age was related to an increased risk of multimorbidity (crimmins et al., 2021; liu et al., 2018; sayed et al., 2021). this points to the value of investigating biological aging as an underlying mechanism for multimorbidity and a shared pathway for different chronic conditions. early detection of accelerated biological aging before the onset of chronic conditions holds the potential for disease prevention. cole (2020) reported that advanced brain aging was associated with hypertension, diabetes, and stroke when testing with 14,701 individuals from the uk biobank (cole, 2020). however, in our study, brain age was not found to be significantly associated with multimorbidity. the relatively small sample size in the neuroscience project could limit the statistical power to detect the effect. as our study is the first attempt to explore the association between brain age and multimorbidity, future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the findings. we identified a set of biological measures, which were found to influence biological age that was positively associated with the risk of multimorbidity. our top ranked biological markers (i.e., feature importance ≥5) for estimating biological age, including total cholesterol, igf1, alkaline phosphatase, glucose, c reactive protein, and peak flow, have also been reported to be predictive of multimorbidity (crimmins et al., 2021). systolic blood pressure has been identified as a risk factor for death and disease (liu et al., 2018; port et al., 2000). in addition to total cholesterol, ldl and triglycerides were also found to be important for the quantification of biological aging (belsky et al., 2015). these identified biological markers are modifiable factors, which may shed the light on new approaches to improve the treatment of multimorbidity. this also points to the need of collecting these biological measures during routine medical visits, which may assist with the detection of at risk individuals. the negative association between brain age gap and chronological age has been thoroughly investigated in prior work published by our group (liang et al., 2019; niu et al., 2020, 2022) as well as other studies (beheshti et al., 2019; cole et al., 2017a, 2017b; smith et al., 2019). the reason for this systematic bias can be explained by regression to the mean (liang et al., 2019). however, this issue has not been formally reported in the literature of biological age estimation. thus, we presented the pattern between biological age gap and chronological age using the midus refresher sample and highlighted the importance of controlling for the confounding effect of chronological age. it is important to note that the bias adjustment step uses chronological age as an input to the model, making it circular for evaluating brain age or biological age prediction accuracy (butler et al., 2021). therefore, the evaluation metrics (e.g., correlation coefficient r, mae) calculated from bias adjusted brain or biological age gap can be artificially inflated and are no longer appropriate for evaluating the prediction performance of the brain or biological age estimation model. the purpose of the age bias adjustment is to control for the confounding effect of chronological age when testing the brain or biological age gap as a predictor of health outcomes. in the case where the age dependency cannot be perfectly eliminated by the bias adjustment, including chronological age as a covariate in subsequent analysis of multimorbidity allows us to further control for the potential confounding effect of age. additionally, we observe that the mae obtained from a test set of healthy adults by the biological age prediction model was larger than the mae calculated from a training set. this demonstrated the need of evaluating model performance using an independent test set as statistical models can easily overfit a training dataset. because biological age can deviate from chronological age in disease groups, the correlation coefficient and mae are the only meaningful metrics for evaluating model performance when examining healthy participants. this speaks to the value of training/calibrating biological age estimation model only using health participants. presenting these methodological issues in our study is helpful to guide the design and analysis of future studies on biological age and brain age. furthermore, while brain or biological age bias adjustment models are designed to mitigate age related prediction bias, their effectiveness can be influenced by various factors, particularly when the models are trained on existing data and then applied to a different cohort. this generalizability may not always be perfect, as the underlying biological and demographic characteristics of the test data might differ from the training data. thus, even with robust bias correction, there may be residual variations that are due to differences in the data sets, such as different mri scanning parameters and biospecimen qualities. further investigation is warranted to delve into the nuanced mechanisms driving the age related dependency, enhancing our understanding of the intricate interplay between biological aging and data analysis techniques. our study found that the 2 way interaction between brain age and sex was negatively associated with the risk of multimorbidity. this suggests that the potential sex difference in how brain aging is related to the accumulation of multiple chronic conditions. previous study on brain aging reported on average younger brain in women throughout adulthood compared to men of the same age (goyal et al., 2019). sex differences in mri based volume loss were also reported across the brain, with females having less volume loss over time than males (armstrong et al., 2019). studies have suggested that sex hormones (e.g., estrogen) can play important roles in brain aging and may have a neuroprotective effect in women (green and simpkins, 2000; zarate et al., 2017). predictors of brain age were also found to be sex specific, highlighting the value of sex specific analyses (sanford et al., 2022). further research is needed on examining sex specific risk and protective factors that influence brain aging and disease accumulation. multimorbidity in mental health has been relatively under investigated, despite its strength in capturing complex clinical representations of psychiatric disorders (bhalla et al., 2018; langan et al., 2013). our study presents the first attempt to investigate how biological age and brain age are related to mental health multimorbidity. as hypothesized, we found that elevated biological age and accelerated brain age were associated with an increased risk of mental health multimorbidity. our findings are consistent with previous studies that found accelerated brain aging in alcohol use (amen et al., 2018; cole, 2020), cannabis use (amen et al., 2018), anxiety (amen et al., 2018), and depression (niu et al., 2022). in addition, accelerated biological aging has been reported in substance use (bachi et al., 2017) and alcohol abuse (piniewska róg et al., 2021). some biological age indicators (e.g., lung function, telomere length) have also been found to be altered in depression and anxiety disorder (han et al., 2019). it will be interesting to examine the relationship between these surrogate aging biomarkers and mental health multimorbidity using data with larger samples and more categories of mental health conditions. because of our interest in examining brain age estimated by neuroimaging data, we chose the midus refresher sample in this study, and thus our findings are limited to cross sectional association. future research can benefit from longitudinal data to investigate whether biological age and brain age predict multimorbidity and mental health multimorbidity prospectively. the longitudinal nature of the midus study will allow such future investigations. furthermore, the estimated brain age was obtained based on structural mri data. it will be interesting to test whether brain age estimated by multimodal neuroimaging data shows a stronger association with multimorbidity and mental health multimorbidity. in addition, our study defined the primary outcome as multimorbidity based on 13 different categories of chronic conditions and explored mental health multimorbidity based on measures available in the midus refresher sample. alternative ways of defining multimorbidity (e.g., whether the duration and severity of chronic conditions are considered) and physical mental multimorbidity patterns need to be examined in future research. integrating other lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in the relationship between aging and multimorbidity may merit future research. publicly available data from the midus study were used for this research. since 1995, the midus study has been funded by the following: the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation research network, national institute on aging (p01 ag020166), and national institute on aging (u19 ag051426). the midus neuroscience project’s data collection was also supported in part by a core grant to the uw madison waisman center from the national institute of child health and human development (p50hd105353). acquired immunodeficiency syndrome body mass index confidence interval cross validation field of view general education development high density lipoprotein human immunodeficiency virus insulin like growth factor 1 low density lipoprotein mean absolute error midlife in the united states study magnetic resonance imaging interleukin 10 odds ratio standard deviation echo time repetition time verification authors declare that data contained in the manuscript being submitted have not been previously published, have not been submitted elsewhere and will not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration at neurobiology of aging. all authors have reviewed the contents of the manuscript being submitted, approve of its contents and validate the accuracy of the data. credit authorship contribution statement fengqing zhang: conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, writing   original draft preparation. hansoo chang: conceptualization, methodology, writing   review & editing. stacey m. schaefer: conceptualization, methodology, writing   review & editing. jiangtao gou: conceptualization, methodology, writing   review & editing. disclosure statement the authors declare no competing interests. connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894

brain age: train your brain in minutes a day!, known as dr. kawashima's brain training: how old is your brain? in the pal regions,[a] is an edutainment puzzle video game developed and published by nintendo for the nintendo ds. it is inspired by the work of japanese neuroscientist ryuta kawashima, who appears as a caricature of himself guiding the player. it was first released in japan in 2005 and worldwide in 2006. brain age features a variety of puzzles, including stroop tests, mathematical questions, and sudoku puzzles, all designed to help keep certain parts of the brain active. it was released as part of the touch! generations series of video games, a series which features games for a more casual gaming audience. brain age uses the touch screen and microphone for many puzzles. it has received both commercial and critical success, selling 19.01 million copies worldwide (as of september 30, 2015)[2] and has received multiple awards for its quality and innovation.[3][4] there has been controversy over the game's scientific effectiveness, as the game was intended to be played solely for entertainment. the game was later released on the nintendo eshop for the wii u in japan in mid 2014.[5][6] it was followed by a sequel titled brain age 2: more training in minutes a day!, and was later followed by two redesigns and brain age express for the nintendo dsi's dsiware service which uses popular puzzles from these titles as well as several new puzzles, and brain age: concentration training for nintendo 3ds. the latest installment in the series, dr kawashima's brain training for nintendo switch, for the nintendo switch, was first released in japan on december 27, 2019.[7] brain age is designed to be played a little each day, similar to the nintendogs titles and animal crossing: wild world. the nintendo ds is held on its side, with the touch screen on the right for right handed people and the left for left handed people. the game is entirely touch and voice controlled   the player either writes the answer to the puzzle on the touch screen or speaks it into the microphone. before the player can begin a brain age session, they must input information. first, players must confirm the date and select which hand they write with. the player then inputs their name and date of birth. at the end of all brain age check puzzles, training puzzles, quick play puzzles, and sudoku puzzles, the player is shown how quickly they completed it, the player's speed (according to metaphors such as "bicycle speed" and "jet speed", the highest being "rocket speed"), and a tip for either improving the player's brain or a game related tip. if the player's time or score in brain age check or training is high enough, it will appear on one or both of the top three. the top three shown is the player's own top three attempts at a puzzle, while they can also compare the top three with those of other saved players. the player's score is only counted on their first attempt at a puzzle each day. the player is also awarded stamps for each day they complete the puzzles. when enough is accumulated, the game unlocks certain features such as more puzzles in training mode, hard versions of these puzzles, and the ability to customize the player's own stamps. while the player is navigating the menus outside of the puzzles, professor kawashima appears to prompt and encourage the user. brain age allows up to four players to save profiles on one ds game card, and these players can interact with each other in several different ways. there are five modes of play   brain age check, training, quick play, download, and sudoku. when starting a session, kawashima may ask the player to participate in a picture drawing quiz, which requires the player to draw a person, place, or thing by memory using the touch screen. after the player has done all three, the game will compare their drawing to an example created by the game developers, along with advice of what to emphasize on below its image. if more than one player profile is saved on the game card, images for the day can be compared to those of other players. kawashima may also ask the player to participate in a memory quiz, which requires the player to recall a recent event, such as what the player ate or the most interesting thing seen on television the day before. several days later, it will ask for the answer originally provided, and will then compare the answer given several days ago and the answer given on the current day to test the player's recollection skills. the player is not scored on their ability to remember. the game includes four modes: brain age check, training, quick play, and sudoku. the brain age check gives the player three puzzle minigames to complete. the first is usually a stroop test, although the player can choose to skip the stroop test if they are not in a quiet environment or is otherwise unable to speak into the microphone. at the end of the brain age check, the game reports on the player's "brain age", a theoretical assessment of the age of the player's brain. the higher the brain age, the worse the player performed. the best possible score is 20 and the worst 80, according with kawashima's theory that the brain stops developing at 20. the player may replay the brain age check, but the brain age is registered per day only. once the player confirms whether or not they can speak into the microphone, professor kawashima will describe the first puzzle. if the player answered that they can speak, the game begins with a stroop test; if the player cannot use the microphone, the game picks a random puzzle from the following: calculations x 20, word memory, connect maze, and number cruncher. during the stroop test, the game will display one of four words and colors: blue, black, yellow, and red. one of these words mentioned will appear on screen, in a random color which may not match the color denoted by the word. the player is instructed to say the color of the word, rather than the word itself (e.g., if the word yellow appears in blue letters, the correct answer is "blue" according to the stroop effect for details). in speed counting, which requires speaking but does not use the microphone, the player counts up from one to 120 as fast as they can without slurring the names of numbers. word memory gives the player a list of 30 four lettered words. the player is given two minutes to study the list and memorize as many words as possible. after the time is up, the player must write down as many words as they can in three minutes. to spell words that were not on the list won't make the player lose marks but the system won't recognize them. on the contrary, spelling an on list word will count as memorized and even the test will notify the players if they already wrote this word in case they rewrite it. connect maze gives players a randomly created group of circles, with letters and numbers in them. the player must follow the pattern a 1 b 2 until reaching m 13 as quickly as possible. calculations × 20 presents the player with 20 simple calculation equations that includes addition, subtraction, and multiplication. on the top screen are the problems which scroll up as answered whether right or wrong, while the touch screen is used to write out the answer. this test is also available in the training section. number cruncher is a mental agility game that displays several numbers, which vary in their appearance and on screen behavior and above it is a question, such as "how many numbers are blue?" or "how many numbers are moving?", which the player must answer as quickly as possible. the training mode allows the player to play a variety of training programs, with all but one of them being exclusive to the training mode. once the player completes at least one program, kawashima awards them with a stamp, which he places on the current date. if the player completes at least three programs, the stamp will expand in size. after accumulating a certain number of stamps, kawashima will award the player with a new program, difficulty mode, or additional feature under the options menu such as the ability for the player to customize their own stamp. each program can be played as many times as the player likes, although only the first play through of the day will count in the graph for that puzzle. there are nine training programs in training mode. the first three are available by default, while the rest are unlocked by collecting enough stamps. quick play can be played by anyone, whether they have a saved file or not. quick play allows the player to play three modes   quick brain age check, quick training, and quick sudoku, all only providing the player with one of the easy puzzles in each of these modes to try. quick brain age check only allows the player to play the stroop test. in quick training, the game only allows the player to play calculations × 20. in quick sudoku, which is only available for north america, europe and south korea, the player may only play the easiest sudoku puzzle available. at the end of each session, the player's brain age or time will be assessed, and kawashima will give a preview of the full game. a player with a copy of brain age can send certain game data to other nintendo ds consoles using the ds download play feature. they may either download quick play mode to this player's nintendo ds, or calculations × 30, a variation of the other calculation puzzles which can be played by up to sixteen people. this mode is not supported in the wii u virtual console version. included in the north america, europe, australia and korea versions of this game is a sudoku mode, which features more than 100 puzzles across three different modes   beginner, intermediate, and advanced. sudoku involves a 9×9 grid with numbers in every square. some of these numbers are visible, while others are not. the objective is to fill in the hidden numbers using the visible numbers as hints. each row, column, and 3×3 grid has nine squares in it, and each must contain each number in the range from 1 to 9. many neurologists recommend the game for prevention of dementia or alzheimer's disease.[8] nintendo of america has refused to support any scientific claims to the benefits of the game, stressing that they are in the entertainment business.[9] one study involved 600 scottish students with one group of students who played twenty minutes of "brain age" before class daily for nine weeks and a control group that studied regularly. the students were tested at the beginning and end of the study. in the end, the group that played brain age improved test scores by 50%. the time to complete the tests in the brain age group dropped by five minutes, and this improvement doubled that of the control group.[10] another study involving 67 ten year olds found no evidence to support claims that brain age improves cognitive function better than other means of training one's brain.[citation needed] however, the game states that the best indications of brain age are when the user is at least twenty years of age. professor of cognitive psychology alain lieury at the university of rennes, france said: "the nintendo ds is a technological jewel. as a game it's fine. but it is charlatanism to claim that it is a scientific test". helping children with homework, reading, playing scrabble or sudoku, or watching documentaries, matched or beat the benefits of brain age. the children were split into four groups. the first two completed a seven week memory course on a nintendo ds, the third did puzzles with pencils and paper, and the fourth went to school as normal. researchers found that children playing brain age failed to show any significant improvement in memory tests. they did do 19% better in mathematics but so did the pencil and paper group, and the fourth group did 18% better. in memorization, the pencil and paper group had a 33% improvement, while the brain age group performed 17% worse. in logic tests, the brain age group had a 10% improvement as did the pencil and paper group. the children who had no training improved 20%.[11] it has also been stated that the same effects of "keeping the brain sharp" can be achieved by either playing sudoku, tetris or talking with friends.[12] a study conducted between march and august 2010 in sendai city, miyagi prefecture, japan, assessed the impact of the brain training game on the elderly, using a double blinded intervention. results showed that playing brain age for 4 weeks could lead to improved cognitive functions (executive functions and processing speed) in the elderly.[13] in a review examining cognitive training programs, a research team led by daniel j. simmons found that nintendo do not cite any scientific literature when describing the touted benefits of brain age and its sequels, and that experimental attempts at verifying kawashima's claims provided mixed results with small effect sizes.[14] nintendo was looking for something new to develop that would appeal to both traditional and casual gamers. in one of the meetings, the chief financial officer of nintendo's japanese division suggested reviewing a published book titled train your brain: 60 days to a better brain, which was enjoying a great deal of success in japan. satoru iwata, the president of nintendo, arranged for a meeting with professor ryuta kawashima, the author of the book.[15] as both iwata and professor kawashima were too busy to meet under normal circumstances, they both agreed to meet for an hour during the nintendo ds launch. the original meeting became a brainstorming session that lasted for three hours, in which professor kawashima explained the basics of his studies. iwata assigned a team of nine developers to develop the game and to have it ready in 90 days for demonstration.[16] brain age's sound director was masami yone, while the music was composed by minako hamano and akito nakatsuka, both having composed music for nintendo games as early as 1993 and 1987 respectively. the main menu song from this game was later used in super smash bros. brawl.[17] the game was received with generally positive reviews in the western market,[19] though some criticized the game for poor voice and handwriting recognition at times.[24][25] the game's design earned it edge magazine's eief06 edge award for innovation.[citation needed] in 2007, during the 10th annual interactive achievement awards, the academy of interactive arts & sciences awarded brain age with "handheld game of the year", along with nominations for "family game of the year", "outstanding innovation in gaming", and "outstanding achievement in game design".[26] the game has also been featured in numerous media apparitions including newspapers and television in different countries, including the united states (time magazine[27][28] and discovery channel[29]) and australia (featured in seven news[30]). wired included the game in its list of "the 15 most influential games of the decade" at no. 5, due to how it "bucked the dominant trends" and "ushered in the era of games that are (supposedly) good for you, like wii fit".[31] the initial reaction from retailers was that of concern about the new title's ability to sell. the most important retailers in japan were given the game for 15 minutes to test it out. in the end, nintendo secured nearly 70,000 orders for the first shipment, an amount above most expectations. in comparison, the sequel had over 850,000 orders placed before its launch.[15] brain age met with positive sales figures. the game debuted selling around 43,000 copies in may 2005, considered a good number for an educational title. although most titles only stay in the japanese weekly top ten list of games for a couple of weeks, brain age managed to stay, as of january 2006, between the most sold games for 34 weeks (except three weeks). as of june 11, 2006, brain age has sold 2,322,970 copies in japan alone.[32] it was the 94th best selling game in japan in 2008, selling 140,992 copies, with total lifetime sales of 3,750,890.[33] during its first three weeks on sale in north america, brain age sold 120,000 copies,[34] becoming the fifteenth title in the top u.s. video game charts during the month of may in terms of units sold.[35] in europe, brain age received critical acclaim, becoming number 1 in the nintendo ds sales chart, and number 4 in the all platforms chart on debut,[36] and selling more than 500,000 units in just over two months.[37] as of january 22, 2007, brain age has sold over 2 million copies in europe.[38] as of october 30, 2007, brain age has sold over one million copies in the united kingdom.[39] it was the 10th best selling nintendo ds game of december 2008 in the united states.[40] as of september 30, 2015, brain age has worldwide sales of 19.01 million.[41] the positive sales figures and overall reception in japan led to brain age being released in various countries around the world. in the north american market, the game is known as brain age: train your brain in minutes a day and was released on april 17, 2006, and included 108 sudoku puzzles of different levels of difficulty. nintendo gave out copies of the north american version of brain age at the 2006 game developers conference. they also shipped free retail versions to special members of the nintendo nsider forums. both groups received their copies before the official release date. it has also been given away to certain retailers with the purchase of a nintendo ds lite.[42] the game was released as dr kawashima's brain training: how old is your brain? in the uk and ireland. like the american version, this version also features sudoku. all 3 parts are saved on one cartridge.[43] in the uk, its initial television commercials featured chris tarrant.[44] nicole kidman, ronan keating, and patrick stewart feature in current european commercials for the brain age series. nintendo australia featured an ad campaign that coincided with its australian release. during the period of june 15 to july 17, 2006, nintendo australia stated that for every copy of brain age purchased, nintendo would donate $1.00 to alzheimer's australia.[45] the game was one of the launch titles for the ds lite in south korea, along with english training: have fun improving your skills!. it was released on january 18, 2007.[46]

cognitive development means the growth of a child’s ability to think and reason. this growth happens differently from ages 6 to 12, and from ages 12 to 18. children ages 6 to 12 years old develop the ability to think in concrete ways. these are called concrete operations. these things are called concrete because they’re done around objects and events. this includes knowing how to: combine (add) separate (subtract or divide) order (alphabetize and sort) transform objects and actions (change things, such as 5 pennies = 1 nickel) ages 12 to 18 is called adolescence. kids and teens in this age group do more complex thinking. this type of thinking is also known as formal logical operations. this includes the ability to: do abstract thinking. this means thinking about possibilities. reason from known principles. this means forming own new ideas or questions. consider many points of view. this means to compare or debate ideas or opinions. think about the process of thinking. this means being aware of the act of thought processes. from ages 12 to 18, children grow in the way they think. they move from concrete thinking to formal logical operations. it’s important to note that: each child moves ahead at their own rate in their ability to think in more complex ways. each child develops their own view of the world. some children may be able to use logical operations in schoolwork long before they can use them for personal problems. when emotional issues come up, they can cause problems with a child’s ability to think in complex ways. the ability to consider possibilities and facts may affect decision making. this can happen in either positive or negative ways. a child in early adolescence: uses more complex thinking focused on personal decision making in school and at home begins to show use of formal logical operations in schoolwork begins to question authority and society's standards begins to form and speak his or her own thoughts and views on many topics. you may hear your child talk about which sports or groups he or she prefers, what kinds of personal appearance is attractive, and what parental rules should be changed. a child in middle adolescence: has some experience in using more complex thinking processes expands thinking to include more philosophical and futuristic concerns often questions more extensively often analyzes more extensively thinks about and begins to form his or her own code of ethics (for example, what do i think is right?) thinks about different possibilities and begins to develop own identity (for example, who am i? ) thinks about and begins to systematically consider possible future goals (for example, what do i want? ) thinks about and begins to make his or her own plans begins to think long term uses systematic thinking and begins to influence relationships with others a child in late adolescence: uses complex thinking to focus on less self centered concepts and personal decision making has increased thoughts about more global concepts, such as justice, history, politics, and patriotism often develops idealistic views on specific topics or concerns may debate and develop intolerance of opposing views begins to focus thinking on making career decisions begins to focus thinking on their emerging role in adult society to help encourage positive and healthy cognitive growth in your teen, you can: include him or her in discussions about a variety of topics, issues, and current events. encourage your child to share ideas and thoughts with you. encourage your teen to think independently and develop his or her own ideas. help your child in setting goals. challenge him or her to think about possibilities for the future. compliment and praise your teen for well thought out decisions. help him or her in re evaluating poorly made decisions. if you have concerns about your child's cognitive development, talk with your child's healthcare provider. adolescent growth and development cognitive development in adolescence growth and development in children with congenital heart disease connect with us: download our app: © 123 stanford medicine children’s health

coronavirus (covid 19): latest updates | visitation policiesvisitation policiesvisitation policiesvisitation policiesvisitation policies | covid 19 testing | vaccine informationvaccine informationvaccine information more information on education more information on research more information on community cognitive development means the growth of a child’s ability to think and reason. this growth happens differently from ages 6 to 12, and from ages 12 to 18. children ages 6 to 12 years old develop the ability to think in concrete ways. these are called concrete operations. these things are called concrete because they’re done around objects and events. this includes knowing how to: combine (add). separate (subtract or divide). order (alphabetize and sort). transform objects and actions (change things, such as 5 pennies = 1 nickel). ages 12 to 18 is called adolescence. kids and teens in this age group do more complex thinking. this type of thinking is also known as formal logical operations. this includes the ability to: do abstract thinking. this means thinking about possibilities. reason from known principles. this means forming own new ideas or questions. consider many points of view. this means to compare or debate ideas or opinions. think about the process of thinking. this means being aware of the act of thought processes. from ages 12 to 18, children grow in the way they think. they move from concrete thinking to formal logical operations. it’s important to note that: each child moves ahead at their own rate in their ability to think in more complex ways. each child develops their own view of the world. some children may be able to use logical operations in schoolwork long before they can use them for personal problems. when emotional issues come up, they can cause problems with a child’s ability to think in complex ways. the ability to consider possibilities and facts may affect decision making. this can happen in either positive or negative ways. a child in early adolescence: uses more complex thinking focused on personal decision making in school and at home. begins to show use of formal logical operations in schoolwork. begins to question authority and society's standards. begins to form and speak their own thoughts and views on many topics. you may hear your child talk about which sports or groups they prefer, what kinds of personal appearance is attractive, and what parental rules should be changed. a child in middle adolescence: has some experience in using more complex thinking processes. expands thinking to include more philosophical and futuristic concerns. often questions more extensively. often analyzes more extensively. thinks about and begins to form their own code of ethics (for example, what do i think is right?). thinks about different possibilities and begins to develop own identity (for example, who am i? ). thinks about and begins to systematically consider possible future goals (for example, what do i want? ). thinks about and begins to make their own plans. begins to think long term. uses systematic thinking and begins to influence relationships with others. a child in late adolescence: uses complex thinking to focus on less self centered concepts and personal decision making. has increased thoughts about more global concepts, such as justice, history, politics, and patriotism. often develops idealistic views on specific topics or concerns. may debate and develop intolerance of opposing views. begins to focus thinking on making career decisions. begins to focus thinking on their emerging role in adult society. to help encourage positive and healthy cognitive growth in your teen, you can: include them in discussions about a variety of topics, issues, and current events.. encourage your child to share ideas and thoughts with you. encourage your teen to think independently and develop their own ideas. help your child in setting goals. challenge them to think about possibilities for the future. compliment and praise your teen for well thought out decisions. help them in reevaluating poorly made decisions. if you have concerns about your child's cognitive development, talk with your child's health care provider. medical reviewers: ©2025 university of rochester medical center rochester, ny viewing: urmcwebtest

last updated: august 2, 2024 approved this article was co authored by daron cam. daron cam is an academic tutor and the founder of bay area tutors, inc., a san francisco bay area based tutoring service that provides tutoring in mathematics, science, and overall academic confidence building. daron has over eight years of teaching math in classrooms and over nine years of one on one tutoring experience. he teaches all levels of math including calculus, pre algebra, algebra i, geometry, and sat/act math prep. daron holds a ba from the university of california, berkeley and a math teaching credential from st. mary's college. there are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. wikihow marks an article as reader approved once it receives enough positive feedback. in this case, 82% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader approved status. this article has been viewed 349,213 times. eventually, you'll find yourself in a situation where you'll have to solve a math problem without a calculator. trying to imagine a pen and paper in your head often doesn't help much. fortunately there are faster and easier ways to do calculations in your head and they often break down a problem in a way that makes more sense than what you learned in school. whether you're a stressed out student or a math wizard looking for even faster tricks, there's something for everyone to learn. joseph meyer exercise your mental math muscles. improve your math skills by solving daily math problems without using calculators, paper, or counting aids. by solely using your mind and getting into math discussions with your classmates, you will refine your skills and discover new approaches to problem solving. one way to improve your mental math skills is to memorize your multiplication and division tables, so you always have the answer to those problems instantly. if you have trouble memorizing the numbers, try creating your own flash cards with blank notecards and asking a friend to help you practice. another good way to practice your mental math skills is to add up the prices of your items when you’re at the store, and check to make sure you added correctly once the cashier rings you up. you can also try downloading a mental math app like luminosity to keep your math skills sharp. to learn how to visualize an equation in your head, read on! anonymous jun 11, 2024 anonymous jun 11, 2024 mr brown may 23, 2022 jess j. feb 12, 2023 anonymous apr 11, 2023 ariel arnaiz nov 22, 2022 follow us wikihow tech help pro: level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

improve problem solving skills with these fun brain teasers author jill padfield published: nov 2024 have you ever heard your kids say any of the following? : math is boring. math is too difficult, i don’t get it! i don’t like math. though this reaction is fairly common, there is a solution! math brain teasers encourage out of the box thinking in a fun and engaging way. they often require logical thinking rather than needing a child to be a math expert. so, many kids don’t even realize they’re learning. math brain teasers are a great way to relax students at the beginning of a class and to inspire a love of learning at home. get started for free today! math brain teasers are a form of game based learning that have many benefits for young minds if practiced regularly. here are some of the ways that math brain teasers can aid child development: whether children are tackling math riddles or visual puzzles, brain teasers develop cognitive skills which can improve academic performance and general life skills. now, let’s dive into some of the different brain teasers you can try out with your children: the answer is three because that’s how many apples you took. this equation is correct when we think in terms of time: 9 a.m. + 5 hours = 2 p.m. the answer is wind. the answer is 11 containers: 7 large boxes (7×8=56 boxes) 4 small boxes (4×10=40 boxes) therefore the merchant shipped 96 boxes in 11 containers. the answer is zero. the answer is two: inside and outside. dreambox adapts to your child’s level and learning needs, ensuring they are appropriately challenged and get confidence building wins. hint: it’s not nine! the answer is three. the grandmother is also a mother and the mother is also a daughter. so, there were only three people. the answer is once. this is because when you subtract five from 25 it becomes 20. so, from here on, you are no longer subtracting from 25. the answer is a 50/50 chance. there are two sides to a coin, so every throw has a 50% chance of landing on heads. the number of throws doesn’t make a difference in the chance of each throw. the answer is the letter n. a farmer is traveling with a fox, a goose, and a sack of beans. he comes across a river with a boat, but he can only take one item with him at a time. if he leaves the goose with the fox, the fox will eat it. if he leaves the goose with the beans, the goose will eat them. how does he get everyone across safely? here’s the step by step solution to the problem: the answer is 888+88+8+8+8=1000. the trick to this riddle is to find the closest number to 1000 using only 8s (888). from there it’s easier to work out the rest. the answer is the glass with the paperclip inside. all of the glasses look like they have the same amount of water in them. but, this doesn’t take into account the weight of the objects inside the glasses. if you remove the larger objects, the water will go down more than if you remove smaller objects. we don’t know the exact size of each item but we can work out that the paperclip is definitely the smallest. the answer is 1. hint: this math brain teaser uses addition. the answer is 17 because each circle is the total of the two digits in the opposite quadrants: the answer is the president. this is a bit of a tricky riddle because you would automatically think it’s mr. white. the answer is three. even in the worst case scenario, you will pick out one black sock and one white sock. so the third one you pick is bound to match one of them. the answer is they both weigh the same because 16 ounces equals one pound. the answer is short. when you add the letters e and r, the word becomes “shorter.” the answer is breath. no one can hold their breath for longer than a few minutes, not even the strongest person in the world. the answer is meat because he works in a butcher shop. so, he weighs meat for a living. the answer is the ground floor. everyone living on the other floors will still need to call the elevator there to then get to their own floors. you are the bus driver, so the bus driver’s eyes are the color of your eyes! the answer is 12 cups. first, you need to work out what 75% of 100 ml is, which is the same as ¾. this would be 75 ml. then, simply divide 900 by 75 or work out how many times 75 fits into 900: 75+75+75+75+75+75+75+75+75+75+75+75 = 900 or 900 ÷ 75 = 12 the answer is 65. when you divide by a fraction it actually turns into a multiplication. so you need to multiply 30 by 2, which gives you 60. then, add 5 and you end up with 65. the answer is $20. the method is adding $5 for each letter in the name of the item. the word coat has four letters which means the equation would be 4×5=20. the answer is a decimal. 6.7 is greater than 6 but less than 7. the answer is 87. turn the image upside down and you will see that the parking lot numbers run in sequence: 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91. the answer is three sheep, two goats, and one horse. he says that he has all sheep except three. so, we know that these three animals must be goats and horses. he also says that he has all goats bar four and all horses bar five. goats + horses = 3 horses + sheep = 4 sheep + goats = 5 use guess and check to figure out what combination of numbers satisfy these equations. through this process, we find that he has one horse, two goats, and three sheep. the answer is five children. the daughters all have the same brother. the answer is that she was born on february 29th in a leap year. this only happens every four years. the answer is 22+(2➗2) = 23. this may look like a complex problem but remember, in math, we always start by answering the equation in the brackets. so, 2➗2 = 1. now we can finish the equation: 22+1 = 23 the answer is 2+5 = 3+4. both 2+5 and 3+4 equal 7. the answer is that there are only three family members eating breakfast: a grandmother (also a mother), a mother (also a daughter), and a daughter. there are two possible answers: 141 and 582. for 141, the number 1 is 3 less than 4, and the number 4 is four times greater than the number 1. for 582, 5 is 4 less than 8 and 8 is four times greater than 2. the answer is 55. if the number of flowers doubles every day, then half of the garden filled on the 55th day would result in the whole garden filled with flowers the next day because ½ + ½ = 1 whole. 2+2 = 44 3+3 = 96 4+4 = 168 5+5 = 2510 then what is 6+6? the answer is 3612. the answer is the number multiplied by itself (6×6=36) combined with the number added to itself (6+6=12). the answer is eight because the rest of them ran away. the answer is four turtles and three tanks. one turtle in each tank would result in an additional turtle with no tank. two turtles in each tank would leave the third tank spare. the answer is a rectangle. it has two sets of equal opposite sides. the answer is 20 times (8, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58, 68, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88(2), 89, 98). the answer is nine. simply add four and five together. the answer is seven because a hexagon has six sides. brain teasers help children to develop a range of important life skills including problem solving, critical thinking, and memory retention. fun brain teasers also encourage children to persist with a problem and increase confidence. brain teasers require children to look at a problem from all angles and consider an alternative perspective. by regularly practicing brain teasers, children learn how to analyze small details and use logic to solve an issue they’re facing. brain teasers have many benefits for children. however, it’s important to start slow to prevent your child from getting frustrated. once your child has mastered the basics, then they can move on to more complicated brain teasers. brain teasers are a great way for children to develop essential life skills that will improve academic performance as well as persistence and dedication. moreover, brain teasers are beneficial for people of all ages, including college age students and adults, since they improve memory and encourage critical thinking. empowering parents and educators to make math practice more impactful. plus, your kids will love it.

skip to main content the brain development of children at this stage accelerates as they receive opportunities at school to learn new mental skills and concepts. as they grow and develop, they become more curious about the world around them, become more interested in exploring it, and begin to solve problems on their own. it’s important to note that for this stage in brain development, learning takes place most effectively through concrete play experiences. at this stage, children typically: what parents can do try to communicate with the teacher regularly about how your child is doing, beyond parent teacher conferences. ask whether your child is reading grade level books. are they writing and speaking well? ask if your child can add and subtract. ask to see a sample of your child’s work and follow up with questions about how it could be better. ask for extra help, if your child needs it. try to make a quiet place for your child to study and try to carve out time every day when your child can focus on reading, writing, and math. read together every day. act out stories together from books, television, or your child’s imagination. what else to keep in mind? watch the screen time. children this age need plenty of exercise and playtime for brain and physical development, so limit their time in front of the tv or computer screen. first grade students use phonics (matching letters and sounds) and word analysis skills to figure out unfamiliar words when reading and writing. they describe characters, settings and major events in a story, using key details. they write about a topic, supplying some facts and providing some sense of opening and closing. first graders add with a sum of 20 or less and subtract with a sum of 20 or less, for example by using strategies based around the number 10. example: to solve 13   4, you can start with 13, subtract 3 to reach 10, and then subtract 1 more to reach 9. they quickly and accurately add with a sum of 10 or less, and quickly and accurately subtract with a sum of 10 or less. they measure lengths of objects by using a shorter object as a unit of length. second grade students pay close attention to details. this includesillustrations and graphics in stories and books to answer who, what, where, when, why and how questions. they can determine the lesson or moral of stories, fables and folktales. they also write stories that include a short sequence of events and contain a clear beginning, middle and end. by the end of second grade, students can add and subtract with a sum of 20 or less quickly and accurately. they learn what the digits mean in three digit numbers. example: 463 is four hundreds, six tens and three ones. they measure and estimate length in standard units. healthy body, healthy mind for their brains to maintain optimal development, children need good nourishment, including plenty of fruits and vegetables, every day. they should be allowed to have an occasional treat, but they should be taught that sweets and high fat treats are not everyday food items. as part of their regular diet, they should have healthy snacks like apple wedges and whole grain crackers. stay updated and receive information from kidcentral tn.

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.
supported by by patricia cohen in 1905, at age 55, sir william osler, the most influential physician of his era, decided to retire from the medical faculty of johns hopkins. in a farewell speech, osler talked about the link between age and accomplishment: the “effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done between the ages of 25 and 40   these 15 golden years of plenty.” in comparison, he noted, “men above 40 years of age” are useless. as for those over 60, there would be an “incalculable benefit” in “commercial, political and professional life, if, as a matter of course, men stopped work at this age.” although such views did not prevent the doctor from going on to accept a post at oxford university, one he retained until his death at age 70, his contention that brainpower, creativity and innovation have an early expiration date was, unfortunately, widely accepted by others. until recently, neurologists believed that brain cells died off without being replaced. psychologists affirmed the supposition by maintaining that the ability to learn trudged steadfastly downward through the years. of course, certain capabilities fall off as you approach 50. memories of where you left the keys or parked the car mysteriously vanish. words suddenly go into hiding as you struggle to remember the guy, you know, in that movie, what was it called? and calculating the tip on your dinner check seems to take longer than it used to. yet it is also true that there is no preordained march toward senescence. some people are much better than their peers at delaying age related declines in memory and calculating speed. what researchers want to know is why. why does your 70 year old neighbor score half her age on a memory test, while you, at 40, have the memory of a senior citizen? if investigators could better detect what protects one person’s mental strengths or chips away at another’s, then perhaps they could devise a program to halt or reverse decline and even shore up improvements. as it turns out, one essential element of mental fitness has already been identified. “education seems to be an elixir that can bring us a healthy body and mind throughout adulthood and even a longer life,” says margie e. lachman, a psychologist at brandeis university who specializes in aging. for those in midlife and beyond, a college degree appears to slow the brain’s aging process by up to a decade, adding a new twist to the cost benefit analysis of higher education   for young students as well as those thinking about returning to school.

 © 2025 wwb holdings, llc.