Longer scans boost prediction and cut costs in brain-wide association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A pervasive dilemma in brain-wide association studies 1 (BWAS) is whether to prioritize functional magnetic resonance imaging (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 well across 76 phenotypes from nine resting-fMRI and task-fMRI datasets ( R 2 = 0.89), spanning diverse scanners, acquisitions, racial groups, disorders and ages. For scans of ≤20 min, accuracy increases linearly with the logarithm of the total scan duration, suggesting that sample size and scan time are initially interchangeable. However, sample size is ultimately more important. Nevertheless, when accounting for the overhead costs of each participant (such as recruitment), longer scans can be substantially cheaper than larger sample size for improving prediction performance. To achieve high prediction performance, 10 min scans are cost inefficient. In most scenarios, the optimal scan time is at least 20 min. On average, 30 min scans are the most cost-effective, yielding 22% savings over 10 min scans. Overshooting the optimal scan time is cheaper than undershooting it, so we recommend a scan time of at least 30 min. Compared with resting-state whole-brain BWAS, the most cost-effective scan time is shorter for task-fMRI and longer for subcortical-to-whole-brain BWAS. In contrast to standard power calculations, our results suggest that jointly optimizing sample size and scan time can boost prediction accuracy while cutting costs. Our empirical reference is available online for future study design ( https://thomasyeolab.github.io/OptimalScanTimeCalculator/index.html ).
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 | 0.066 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".