Back

What is the test-retest reliability of common task-fMRI measures? Newempirical evidence and a meta-analysis

Elliott, M. L.; Knodt, A. R.; Ireland, D.; Morris, M. L.; Polton, R.; Ramrakha, S.; Sison, M. L.; Moffitt, T. E.; Caspi, A.; Hariri, A.

2019-07-22 neuroscience
10.1101/681700 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Identifying brain biomarkers of disease risk is a growing priority in neuroscience. The ability to identify meaningful biomarkers is limited by measurement reliability; unreliable measures are unsuitable for predicting clinical outcomes. Measuring brain activity using task-fMRI is a major focus of biomarker development; however, the reliability of task-fMRI has not been systematically evaluated. We present converging evidence demonstrating poor reliability of task-fMRI measures. First, a meta-analysis of 90 experiments (N=1,008) revealed poor overall reliability (mean ICC=.397). Second, the test-retest reliabilities of activity in a priori regions of interest across 11 common fMRI tasks collected in the context of the Human Connectome Project (N=45) and the Dunedin Study (N=20) were poor (ICCs=.067-.485). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that common task-fMRI measures are not currently suitable for brain biomarker discovery or individual differences research. We review how this state of affairs came to be and highlight avenues for improving task-fMRI reliability.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.