ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026
Charting confidence in white matter brain charts: enabling study planning through stability validation.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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
40 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Normative modeling of quantitative brain measurements is being widely adopted as a promising method for charting population-level developmental trajectories and identifying abnormalities in groups and individuals. Generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape (GAMLSS) are a statistical framework that has been identified by the World Health Organization as a robust method for large-scale population modeling. Validating the stability of normative models is essential for appropriate benchmarking and detecting anomalies, especially for patients with neurodegenerative or developmental disorders. As these models continue to expand in the number of features and amount of data, it becomes increasingly important to assess the stability of the models and their predictions. Approach: An analytic approach is extended from previous work to assess variability of the GAMLSS framework for normative modeling of white matter measurements across the lifespan. The analytic variance and bias are compared with empirical bootstrapping estimates and those of an analogous model that is a nonparametric, data-driven analog. Results: Across all models, the analytic approach showed low model variability ( Conclusions: Results suggest that the GAMLSS brain charts are a stable method of defining and charting normative white matter development as well as planning future clinical or research studies. Overall, this study provides an assessment of GAMLSS-derived brain chart variance in a large-scale population.
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.