ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2026
The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study: Ten years of statistical and methodological contributions.
Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has substantially advanced developmental neuroscience through its large scale and open-science framework. This review synthesizes the study's significant statistical and methodological contributions over its first ten years, organized around the pillars of population neuroscience, longitudinal modeling, and causal inference. We first examine how ABCD's population-based design has prompted a reconsideration of how effect sizes are interpreted, helping to establish new benchmarks for distinguishing stable, biologically relevant signals from trivial associations in large-N contexts. We detail the computational innovations required to process high-dimensional data at scale, specifically highlighting new analytic tools like the Fast and Efficient Mixed Effects Algorithm (FEMA) framework for mass-univariate modeling and advanced strategies for managing selective attrition and missing data in large-scale longitudinal cohorts. In the domain of longitudinal and multilevel modeling, we discuss the transition from traditional cross-lagged designs to sophisticated frameworks - such as random-intercept cross-lagged panel models, latent growth curves, and parallel process models - that disentangle within-person developmental trajectories from stable between-person traits. We further highlight the study's role in advancing causal inference in observational research through "G-methods", marginal structural models, and quasi-experimental family-based designs. Finally, we explore how ABCD serves as a critical bridge for cross-cohort generalizability and lifespan validation using datasets like the UK Biobank. By contributing to new standards for reproducibility and methodological rigor, the ABCD Study has helped move neuroscience toward a "big data" era, providing a comprehensive statistical foundation for understanding the complex interplay between biology and environment during the transition to adulthood.
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.