Test–retest reliability of fMRI verbal episodic memory paradigms in healthy older adults and in persons with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated test-retest functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) reproducibility in 10 healthy older adults and in 10 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) persons using a two-condition (encoding and retrieval) verbal episodic memory task as well as a two-condition (with and without a motor response) phonological processing task. Reproducibility measures included an overlap ratio with four different thresholds, statistical comparisons of the condition contrasts across sessions (test-retest contrasts), ANCOVAs, and intraclass correlation (ICC) on selected regions of interests (ROIs). In all four conditions and for all reproducibility measures, MCI individuals showed fMRI test-retest reproducibility indices that were comparable to those of healthy older adults. At the group level, the comparison of the test-retest condition contrasts yielded very few differences in the areas and level of activation and those differences tended to show a slight reduction of activation in the second session. In addition, the results from the ANCOVAs showed that the fMRI signal measured at the group level does not vary significantly from one session to another. Overlap ratios, however, showed that the fMRI signal failed to produce a reliable pattern of significantly activated voxels across sessions. ICC analyses on selected ROIs indicated that there is high within-subject variability, suggesting reduced reliability at the individual level. Overall, these findings indicate that MCI individuals show fMRI test-retest reproducibility comparable to those of healthy controls and hence that MCI do not alter fMRI reproducibility. Furthermore, they indicate that monitoring treatment effects is reliable when comparing groups but reduced when comparing single individuals. These results have precise implications for the design of longitudinal studies relying on fMRI measures in older adults.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".