ArticleHuman brain mapping2026
Leveraging Longitudinal Data to Improve BrainChart Calibration for Small Study Sample Sizes.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging Longitudinal Data to Improve BrainChart Calibration for Small Study Sample Sizes.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Longitudinal brain imaging studies offer valuable insight into trajectories of brain structures over time; however, changes in acquisition scanners and protocols can introduce biases in the resulting measures. Although BrainChart provides a framework for calibrating FreeSurfer-derived brain structure measurements between studies or time points, population samples with small subject numbers ≤ 100 are known to give unstable sample effect parameter estimates. Under the assumption that centiles of control subjects are stable across time points, we present a method to improve reliability of population sample effect parameter estimation for time points in longitudinal studies that have small numbers of control participants but include a nested sample with repeat scans of some control participants at multiple time points. We verify the accuracy of this method using both simulated and real datasets, which demonstrate comparable estimates close to the ground truth and improved confidence intervals at smaller sample sizes than the original method. Additionally, our approach confirms accuracy across both time points and scanners. The software, which is available on GitHub, offers a means to extend the value of brain imaging data acquired using variable scanners and/or protocols for longitudinal studies, thus maximizing the value of brain imaging data in established cohorts.
Indexed as
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.