Fast and accurate modelling of longitudinal and repeated measures neuroimaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing importance of longitudinal data in neuroimaging, the standard analysis methods make restrictive or unrealistic assumptions (e.g., assumption of Compound Symmetry--the state of all equal variances and equal correlations--or spatially homogeneous longitudinal correlations). While some new methods have been proposed to more accurately account for such data, these methods are based on iterative algorithms that are slow and failure-prone. In this article, we propose the use of the Sandwich Estimator method which first estimates the parameters of interest with a simple Ordinary Least Square model and second estimates variances/covariances with the "so-called" Sandwich Estimator (SwE) which accounts for the within-subject correlation existing in longitudinal data. Here, we introduce the SwE method in its classic form, and we review and propose several adjustments to improve its behaviour, specifically in small samples. We use intensive Monte Carlo simulations to compare all considered adjustments and isolate the best combination for neuroimaging data. We also compare the SwE method to other popular methods and demonstrate its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we analyse a highly unbalanced longitudinal dataset from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and demonstrate the flexibility of the SwE method to fit within- and between-subject effects in a single model. Software implementing this SwE method has been made freely available at http://warwick.ac.uk/tenichols/SwE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".