ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Study design features increase replicability in cross-sectional and longitudinal brain-wide association studies.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain-wide association studies (BWAS) are a fundamental tool in discovering brain-behavior associations. Several recent studies showed that thousands of study participants are required for good replicability of BWAS because the standardized effect sizes (ESs) are much smaller than the reported standardized ESs in smaller studies. Here, we perform analyses and meta-analyses of a robust effect size index using 63 longitudinal and cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging studies from the Lifespan Brain Chart Consortium (77,695 total scans) to demonstrate that optimizing study design is critical for increasing standardized ESs and replicability in BWAS. A meta-analysis of brain volume associations with age indicates that BWAS with larger variability in covariate have larger reported standardized ES. In addition, the longitudinal studies we examined reported systematically larger standardized ES than cross-sectional studies. Analyzing age effects on global and regional brain measures from the United Kingdom Biobank and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we show that modifying longitudinal study design through sampling schemes improves the standardized ESs and replicability. Sampling schemes that improve standardized ESs and replicability include increasing between-subject age variability in the sample and adding a single additional longitudinal measurement per subject. To ensure that our results are generalizable, we further evaluate these longitudinal sampling schemes on cognitive, psychopathology, and demographic associations with structural and functional brain outcome measures in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development dataset. We demonstrate that commonly used longitudinal models can, counterintuitively, reduce standardized ESs and replicability. The benefit of conducting longitudinal studies depends on the strengths of the between- versus within-subject associations of the brain and non-brain measures. Explicitly modeling between- versus within-subject effects avoids averaging the effects and allows optimizing the standardized ESs for each separately. Together, these results provide guidance for study designs that improve the replicability of BWAS.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.