ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Predicting Developmental Norms from Baseline Cortical Thickness in Longitudinal Studies.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Normative models have gained popularity in computational psychiatry for studying individual-level differences relative to population norms in biological data such as brain imaging, where measures like cortical thickness are typically predicted from variables such as age and sex. Nearly all published models to date are based on cross-sectional data, limiting their ability to predict longitudinal change. Here, we used longitudinal brain data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, comprising cortical thickness measures from 180 regions per hemisphere in youths at baseline (N=6179; 47% females), 2-year (N=6179; 47% females), and 4-year (N=805; 45% females) follow-up. A training set was established from baseline and 2-year follow-up data (N=5374; 47% females), while data from individuals with all three time points available served as an independent test set (N=805; 45% females). We developed sex-specific Baseline-Integrated Norms (B-Norms) that predict brain region thickness at follow-up based on baseline thickness, baseline age, and follow-up age, and compared them to sex-specific standard Cross-Sectional Norms (C-Norms) based on age alone. Out-of-sample testing in 2-year and 4-year follow-up data showed that B-Norms consistently provided better fits than C-Norms for nearly all cortical regions. Explained variance was higher in B-Norms than in C-Norms. We found no significant differences between time points (p = 0.45). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed differences in higher-order moments (e.g., skewness and kurtosis) for both models; for example, skewness varied by model, sex, time point, and their interactions. While improved fit alone does not necessarily indicate a superior normative model - since normative models aim to capture population variance rather than simply optimize fit - we demonstrated that four regions were associated with pubertal changes in B-Norms but not in C-Norms, suggesting enhanced sensitivity of B-Norms to developmental processes. Together, our findings highlight the potential of B-Norms for capturing normative variation in longitudinal structural brain change.
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.