Longer scans boost prediction and cut costs in brain-wide association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A pervasive dilemma in brain-wide association studies (BWAS) is whether to prioritize functional MRI (fMRI) scan time or sample size. We derive a theoretical model showing that individual-level phenotypic prediction accuracy increases with sample size and total scan duration (sample size × scan time per participant). The model explains empirical prediction accuracies extremely well across 76 phenotypes from nine resting-fMRI and task-fMRI datasets (R 2 = 0.89), spanning a wide range of scanners, acquisitions, racial groups, disorders and ages. For scans ≤20 mins, prediction accuracy increases linearly with the logarithm of total scan duration, suggesting interchangeability of sample size and scan time. However, sample size is ultimately more important than scan time in determining prediction accuracy. Nevertheless, when accounting for overhead costs associated with each participant (e.g., recruitment costs), to boost prediction accuracy, longer scans can yield substantial cost savings over larger sample size. To achieve high prediction performance, 10-min scans are highly cost inefficient. In most scenarios, the optimal scan time is ≥20 mins. On average, 30-min scans are the most cost-effective, yielding 22% cost savings over 10-min scans. Overshooting is cheaper than undershooting the optimal scan time, so we recommend aiming for ≥30 mins. Compared with resting-state whole-brain BWAS, the most cost-effective scan time is shorter for task-fMRI and longer for subcortical-cortical BWAS. Standard power calculations maximize sample size at the expense of scan time. Our study demonstrates that optimizing both sample size and scan time can boost prediction power while cutting costs. Our empirically informed reference is available for future study planning: WEB_APPLICATION_LINK
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".