ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Individualised prediction of longitudinal change in multimodal brain imaging.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of automated white matter lesion segmentation approaches for use in large, multi-site data analyses in Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It remains largely unknown whether individualised longitudinal changes of brain imaging features can be predicted based only on the baseline brain images. This would be of great value, for example, for longitudinal data imputation, longitudinal brain-behaviour associations, and early prediction of brain-related diseases. We explore this possibility using longitudinal data of multiple modalities from UK Biobank brain imaging, with around 3,500 subjects. As baseline and follow-up images are generally similar in the case of short follow-up time intervals (e.g., 2 years), a simple copy of the baseline image may have a very good prediction performance. Therefore, for the first time, we propose a new mathematical framework for guiding the longitudinal prediction of brain images, providing answers to fundamental questions: (1) what is a suitable definition of longitudinal change; (2) how to detect the existence of changes; (3) what is the "null" prediction performance; and (4) can we distinguish longitudinal change prediction from simple data denoising. Building on these, we designed a deep U-Net based model for predicting longitudinal changes in multimodal brain images. Our results show that the proposed model can predict to a modest degree individualised longitudinal changes in almost all modalities, and outperforms other potential models. Furthermore, compared with the true longitudinal changes computed from real data, the predicted longitudinal changes have a similar or even improved accuracy in predicting subjects' non-imaging phenotypes, and have a high between-subject discriminability. Our study contributes a new theoretical framework for longitudinal brain imaging studies, and our results show the potential for longitudinal data imputation, along with highlighting several caveats when performing longitudinal data analysis.
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.