Author
Anders Perrone
Other affiliations: University of Minnesota
Bio: Anders Perrone is an academic researcher from Oregon Health & Science University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Cognition. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 17 publications receiving 596 citations. Previous affiliations of Anders Perrone include University of Minnesota.
Topics: Medicine, Cognition, Biology, Computer science, Neuroimaging
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article , the authors used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available, with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals, to quantify brain-wide association studies effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size.
Abstract: Magnetic 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.
611 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available, with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals, to quantify brain-wide association studies effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size.
Abstract: Magnetic 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.
520 citations
••
University of California, San Diego1, McGill University2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Florida International University4, Yale University5, Washington University in St. Louis6, Virginia Commonwealth University7, University of Vermont8, University of Michigan9, Medical University of South Carolina10, National Institutes of Health11, SRI International12, University of Southern California13, McGovern Institute for Brain Research14, Harvard University15, Medical College of Wisconsin16, University of California, Irvine17, University of California, Los Angeles18, University of California, San Francisco19, University of Colorado Boulder20, University of Florida21, University of Maryland, Baltimore22, University of Massachusetts Boston23, University of Minnesota24, University of Pittsburgh25, University of Rochester26, University of Tennessee27, University of Utah28, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee29, United States Department of Veterans Affairs30, Boston University31
TL;DR: The baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study are described to be a resource of unprecedented scale and depth for studying typical and atypical development.
431 citations
••
University of California1, McGill University2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Florida International University4, Yale University5, University of Washington6, Virginia Commonwealth University7, University of Vermont8, University of Michigan9, Medical University of South Carolina10, National Institute on Drug Abuse11, SRI International12, Children's Hospital Los Angeles13, National Institutes of Health14, McGovern Institute for Brain Research15, Harvard University16, Medical College of Wisconsin17, University of Colorado Boulder18, University of Florida19, University of Maryland, Baltimore20, University of Massachusetts Amherst21, University of Minnesota22, University of Pittsburgh23, University of Rochester24, University of Tennessee25, University of Utah26, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee27, Boston University28
TL;DR: The baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the ABCD DAIC in the centralized processing and extraction of neuroanatomical and functional imaging phenotypes are described.
Abstract: The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study is an ongoing, nationwide study of the effects of environmental influences on behavioral and brain development in adolescents. The ABCD Study is a collaborative effort, including a Coordinating Center, 21 data acquisition sites across the United States, and a Data Analysis and Informatics Center (DAIC). The main objective of the study is to recruit and assess over eleven thousand 9-10-year-olds and follow them over the course of 10 years to characterize normative brain and cognitive development, the many factors that influence brain development, and the effects of those factors on mental health and other outcomes. The study employs state-of-the-art multimodal brain imaging, cognitive and clinical assessments, bioassays, and careful assessment of substance use, environment, psychopathological symptoms, and social functioning. The data will provide a resource of unprecedented scale and depth for studying typical and atypical development. Here, we describe the baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the ABCD DAIC in the centralized processing and extraction of neuroanatomical and functional imaging phenotypes. Neuroimaging processing and analyses include modality-specific corrections for distortions and motion, brain segmentation and cortical surface reconstruction derived from structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), analysis of brain microstructure using diffusion MRI (dMRI), task-related analysis of functional MRI (fMRI), and functional connectivity analysis of resting-state fMRI.
276 citations
••
TL;DR: It is shown that the pairing of small brain-behavioral phenotype effect sizes with sampling variability is a key element in wide-spread BWAS replication failure, and large consortia are needed to usher in a new era of reproducible human brain-wide association studies.
Abstract: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) continues to drive many important neuroscientific advances. However, progress in uncovering reproducible associations between individual differences in brain structure/function and behavioral phenotypes (e.g., cognition, mental health) may have been undermined by typical neuroimaging sample sizes (median N=25)1,2. Leveraging the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study3 (N=11,878), we estimated the effect sizes and reproducibility of these brain-wide associations studies (BWAS) as a function of sample size. The very largest, replicable brain-wide associations for univariate and multivariate methods were r=0.14 and r=0.34, respectively. In smaller samples, typical for brain-wide association studies (BWAS), irreproducible, inflated effect sizes were ubiquitous, no matter the method (univariate, multivariate). Until sample sizes started to approach consortium-levels, BWAS were underpowered and statistical errors assured. Multiple factors contribute to replication failures4–6; here, we show that the pairing of small brain-behavioral phenotype effect sizes with sampling variability is a key element in wide-spread BWAS replication failure. Brain-behavioral phenotype associations stabilize and become more reproducible with sample sizes of N⪆2,000. While investigator-initiated brain-behavior research continues to generate hypotheses and propel innovation, large consortia are needed to usher in a new era of reproducible human brain-wide association studies.
175 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article , the authors used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available, with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals, to quantify brain-wide association studies effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size.
Abstract: Magnetic 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.
611 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available, with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals, to quantify brain-wide association studies effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size.
Abstract: Magnetic 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.
520 citations
••
University of California, San Diego1, McGill University2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Florida International University4, Yale University5, Washington University in St. Louis6, Virginia Commonwealth University7, University of Vermont8, University of Michigan9, Medical University of South Carolina10, National Institutes of Health11, SRI International12, University of Southern California13, McGovern Institute for Brain Research14, Harvard University15, Medical College of Wisconsin16, University of California, Irvine17, University of California, Los Angeles18, University of California, San Francisco19, University of Colorado Boulder20, University of Florida21, University of Maryland, Baltimore22, University of Massachusetts Boston23, University of Minnesota24, University of Pittsburgh25, University of Rochester26, University of Tennessee27, University of Utah28, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee29, United States Department of Veterans Affairs30, Boston University31
TL;DR: The baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study are described to be a resource of unprecedented scale and depth for studying typical and atypical development.
431 citations
••
TL;DR: A recent explosion of in vivo MRI-based approaches to identify and parcellate the brain on the basis of a wealth of different features, ranging from local properties of brain tissue to long-range connectivity patterns, in addition to structural and functional markers as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A defining aspect of brain organization is its spatial heterogeneity, which gives rise to multiple topographies at different scales. Brain parcellation - defining distinct partitions in the brain, be they areas or networks that comprise multiple discontinuous but closely interacting regions - is thus fundamental for understanding brain organization and function. The past decade has seen an explosion of in vivo MRI-based approaches to identify and parcellate the brain on the basis of a wealth of different features, ranging from local properties of brain tissue to long-range connectivity patterns, in addition to structural and functional markers. Given the high diversity of these various approaches, assessing the convergence and divergence among these ensuing maps is a challenge. Inter-individual variability adds to this challenge but also provides new opportunities when coupled with cross-species and developmental parcellation studies.
316 citations
••
University of California1, McGill University2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Florida International University4, Yale University5, University of Washington6, Virginia Commonwealth University7, University of Vermont8, University of Michigan9, Medical University of South Carolina10, National Institute on Drug Abuse11, SRI International12, Children's Hospital Los Angeles13, National Institutes of Health14, McGovern Institute for Brain Research15, Harvard University16, Medical College of Wisconsin17, University of Colorado Boulder18, University of Florida19, University of Maryland, Baltimore20, University of Massachusetts Amherst21, University of Minnesota22, University of Pittsburgh23, University of Rochester24, University of Tennessee25, University of Utah26, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee27, Boston University28
TL;DR: The baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the ABCD DAIC in the centralized processing and extraction of neuroanatomical and functional imaging phenotypes are described.
Abstract: The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study is an ongoing, nationwide study of the effects of environmental influences on behavioral and brain development in adolescents. The ABCD Study is a collaborative effort, including a Coordinating Center, 21 data acquisition sites across the United States, and a Data Analysis and Informatics Center (DAIC). The main objective of the study is to recruit and assess over eleven thousand 9-10-year-olds and follow them over the course of 10 years to characterize normative brain and cognitive development, the many factors that influence brain development, and the effects of those factors on mental health and other outcomes. The study employs state-of-the-art multimodal brain imaging, cognitive and clinical assessments, bioassays, and careful assessment of substance use, environment, psychopathological symptoms, and social functioning. The data will provide a resource of unprecedented scale and depth for studying typical and atypical development. Here, we describe the baseline neuroimaging processing and subject-level analysis methods used by the ABCD DAIC in the centralized processing and extraction of neuroanatomical and functional imaging phenotypes. Neuroimaging processing and analyses include modality-specific corrections for distortions and motion, brain segmentation and cortical surface reconstruction derived from structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), analysis of brain microstructure using diffusion MRI (dMRI), task-related analysis of functional MRI (fMRI), and functional connectivity analysis of resting-state fMRI.
276 citations