Replicability of multivariate brain-behaviour associations depends on clinical profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work suggests that thousands of individuals are required in multivariate brain-behaviour analyses to obtain consistently replicable results. Some believe, however, that smaller sample sizes may be sufficient if specific subpopulations are targeted. We investigated how sample size and cohort composition influence the replicability of Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) results using the UK Biobank (N=40,514). We applied CCA to diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) phenotypes and cognitive assessment test scores. We defined four participant cohorts based on clinical profile and found that, across all cohorts, sample sizes of around 500 were needed to obtain replicable canonical correlations and variable loadings. The most targeted cohort required much fewer samples to achieve similar or greater correlations than the other cohorts. Variable loadings were consistent between sample sizes of ~500 to thousands, suggesting that sample sizes in the order of hundreds may be sufficient for obtaining reliable CCA results.
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 | 0.151 | 0.275 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".