Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42529723›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2026

MIND versus MSN: A systematic evaluation of test-retest reliability and age sensitivity for T1-weighted structural similarity networks.

Jiaqi Gao, Yang Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jiaqi GaoFaculty of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
Yang HuIndependent Researcher.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7342-8687

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Constructing structural similarity networks from T1-weighted MRI offers a powerful means to characterize brain organization. Two prominent methods for constructing such networks, Morphometric Similarity Network (MSN) and Morphometric INverse Divergence (MIND), have been proposed. However, a systematic evaluation of the test-retest reliability and age sensitivity of both MIND and MSN is still lacking. The present study comprehensively assessed these properties to inform the reliability and validity of both approaches. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using two public datasets containing repeated MRI scans. Age sensitivity was examined by conducting edge-wise comparisons between younger and older age groups, as well as by training machine learning models to predict individual age, using two public lifespan datasets. Additionally, several practical variants of MIND and MSN were explored by constructing networks with different morphological feature sets. Results demonstrated that MSN exhibited higher test-retest reliability, whereas MIND showed greater age sensitivity when both methods employed the same five features. Both methods revealed distinct spatial patterns that differentiate older from younger adults. Notably, the choice of feature sets substantially influenced reliability and age sensitivity. These findings offer empirical guidance for methodological selection and highlight the importance of feature optimization in future studies.

Indexed as

Age sensitivityMINDMSNStructural similarity networkT1-weighted MRITest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID42529723
PMCPMC13418519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.