Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals
Author:
Marek ScottORCID, Tervo-Clemmens BrendenORCID, Calabro Finnegan J.ORCID, Montez David F., Kay Benjamin P., Hatoum Alexander S., Donohue Meghan Rose, Foran William, Miller Ryland L., Hendrickson Timothy J., Malone Stephen M., Kandala Sridhar, Feczko Eric, Miranda-Dominguez Oscar, Graham Alice M., Earl Eric A.ORCID, Perrone Anders J., Cordova Michaela, Doyle OliviaORCID, Moore Lucille A.ORCID, Conan Gregory M., Uriarte Johnny, Snider Kathy, Lynch Benjamin J.ORCID, Wilgenbusch James C., Pengo Thomas, Tam AngelaORCID, Chen Jianzhong, Newbold Dillan J., Zheng Annie, Seider Nicole A.ORCID, Van Andrew N., Metoki Athanasia, Chauvin Roselyne J.ORCID, Laumann Timothy O., Greene Deanna J.ORCID, Petersen Steven E., Garavan Hugh, Thompson Wesley K., Nichols Thomas E.ORCID, Yeo B. T. Thomas, Barch Deanna M.ORCID, Luna Beatriz, Fair Damien A.ORCID, Dosenbach Nico U. F.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed our understanding of the human brain through well-replicated mapping of abilities to specific structures (for example, lesion studies) and functions1–3 (for example, task functional MRI (fMRI)). Mental health research and care have yet to realize similar advances from MRI. A primary challenge has been replicating associations between inter-individual differences in brain structure or function and complex cognitive or mental health phenotypes (brain-wide association studies (BWAS)). Such BWAS have typically relied on sample sizes appropriate for classical brain mapping4 (the median neuroimaging study sample size is about 25), but potentially too small for capturing reproducible brain–behavioural phenotype associations5,6. Here we used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available—with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals—to quantify BWAS effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size. BWAS associations were smaller than previously thought, resulting in statistically underpowered studies, inflated effect sizes and replication failures at typical sample sizes. As sample sizes grew into the thousands, replication rates began to improve and effect size inflation decreased. More robust BWAS effects were detected for functional MRI (versus structural), cognitive tests (versus mental health questionnaires) and multivariate methods (versus univariate). Smaller than expected brain–phenotype associations and variability across population subsamples can explain widespread BWAS replication failures. In contrast to non-BWAS approaches with larger effects (for example, lesions, interventions and within-person), BWAS reproducibility requires samples with thousands of individuals.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Multidisciplinary
Reference71 articles.
1. Raichle, M. E. et al. A default mode of brain function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 676–682 (2001). 2. Wagner, A. D. et al. Building memories: remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. Science 281, 1188–1191 (1998). 3. Buckner, R. L. et al. Detection of cortical activation during averaged single trials of a cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 14878–14883 (1996). 4. Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: an evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990-2012) and of latest practices (2017-2018) in high-impact journals. Neuroimage 221, 117164 (2020). 5. Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).
Cited by
1025 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|