ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Reliability of structural brain change in cognitively healthy adult samples.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
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 two 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 compared to cortical area, thickness, and volume. The reliability estimates were comparable to 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. 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.