MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409235235 · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00547

Reliability of structural brain change in cognitively healthy adult samples

2025· article· en· W4409235235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute on Drug AbuseInstitute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of SciencesEuropean Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizer CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesNorthwest Regional Development AgencyMcGill UniversityHelse- og OmsorgsdepartementetNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNorges ForskningsrådWellcome TrustCancer Research UKAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General HospitalHangzhou Normal UniversityGovernment of CanadaBritish Heart FoundationPfizerChild Mind InstituteMassachusetts General HospitalUniversitetet i OsloHarvard UniversityNational Social Science Fund of ChinaCentre d'Imagerie BioMédicaleFondation Brain CanadaAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)NeuroimagingBrain sizeLongitudinal studySample size determinationPsychologyCognitionStatisticsMedicineMathematicsNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it