Reliability of structural brain change in cognitively healthy adult samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In neuroimaging research, tracking individuals over time is key to understanding the interplay between brain changes and genetic, environmental, or cognitive factors across the lifespan. Yet, the extent to which we can estimate the individual trajectories of brain change over time with precision remains uncertain. In this study, we estimated the reliability of structural brain change in cognitively healthy adults from multiple samples and assessed the influence of follow-up time and number of observations. Estimates of cross-sectional measurement error and brain change variance were obtained using the longitudinal FreeSurfer processing stream. Our findings showed, on average, modest longitudinal reliability with 2 years of follow-up. Increasing the follow-up time was associated with a substantial increase in longitudinal reliability, while the impact of increasing the number of observations was comparatively minor. On average, 2-year follow-up studies require ≈2.7 and ≈4.0 times more individuals than designs with follow-ups of 4 and 6 years to achieve comparable statistical power. Subcortical volume exhibited higher longitudinal reliability than cortical area, thickness, and volume. The reliability estimates were comparable with those estimated from empirical data. The reliability estimates were affected by both the cohort's age where younger adults had lower reliability of change and the preprocessing pipeline where the FreeSurfer's longitudinal stream was notably superior than the cross-sectional stream. Suboptimal reliability inflated sample size requirements and compromised the ability to distinguish individual trajectories of brain aging. This study underscores the importance of long-term follow-ups and the need to consider reliability in longitudinal neuroimaging research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".