Reliability of multimodal MRI brain measures in youth at risk for mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A new generation of large-scale studies is using neuroimaging to investigate adolescent brain development across health and disease. However, imaging artifacts such as head motion remain a challenge and may be exacerbated in pediatric clinical samples. In this study, we assessed the scan-rescan reliability of multimodal MRI in a sample of youth enriched for risk of mental illness. METHODS: We obtained repeated MRI scans, an average of 2.7 ± 1.4 weeks apart, from 50 youth (mean age 14.7 years, SD = 4.4). Half of the sample (52%) had a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder; 22% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We quantified reliability with the test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Gray matter measurements were highly reliable with mean ICCs as follows: cortical volume (ICC = 0.90), cortical surface area (ICC = 0.89), cortical thickness (ICC = 0.82), and local gyrification index (ICC = 0.85). White matter volume reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.98). Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) components were also highly reliable. Fractional anisotropy was most consistently measured (ICC = 0.88), followed by radial diffusivity (ICC = 0.84), mean diffusivity (ICC = 0.81), and axial diffusivity (ICC = 0.78). We also observed regional variability in reconstruction, with some brain structures less reliably reconstructed than others. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we showed that developmental MRI measures are highly reliable, even in youth at risk for mental illness and those already affected by anxiety and neurodevelopmental disorders. Yet, caution is warranted if patterns of results cluster within regions of lower reliability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".