Systematic fMRI signal differences across cohorts alter lifespan connectome trajectories
Chan, M. Y.; Han, L.; Wig, G. S.
Show abstract
Large-scale lifespan neuroimaging studies increasingly integrate data across distinct cohorts to characterize trajectories of brain development and aging. However, systematic differences in acquisition protocols and hardware across cohorts can alter signal characteristics in ways that bias downstream analyses. Here we examine three cohorts from the Human Connectome Project (HCP), spanning development (HCP-D), young adulthood (HCP-YA) and aging samples (HCP-A), to illustrate this issue and evaluate existing strategies to mitigate it. HCP has set standards for open, deeply phenotyped, high-resolution human neuroimaging, which are frequently used as high-quality reference datasets in tool validation, replication studies, and cross-cohort meta-analyses. Because of HCPs widespread usage, even modest protocol differences between cohorts-and their downstream effects-can have outsized impacts on the field of neuroscience research. Our analysis reveals that the HCP-YA cohort exhibits systematically weaker temporal signal-to-noise-ratio (tSNR) relative to HCP-D/A. These signal quality discrepancies propagate to downstream analyses, leading to differences in overall resting-state functional correlations, and whole-brain and node-level measures of resting-state network organization (e.g., system segregation, modularity, participation coefficient). Consistent with protocol-driven signal differences, resting-state network measures derived from HCP-YA depart from expected lifespan trajectories, as confirmed by examination of two other lifespan datasets. Harmonization approaches accounting for protocol and scanner-model differences alleviate some of the artifactual differences in brain network measurement. Our findings underscore that signal differences do not merely introduce noise, but can qualitatively alter estimated lifespan trajectories of functional network organization, including partially inverting expected lifespan patterns. Without appropriate harmonization, analyses that combine HCP cohorts can therefore result in biologically misleading inferences about development and aging. We demonstrate how small acquisition differences bias resting-state-derived network metrics, and how these effects can be mitigated. This work advances best practices for valid inferences in multi-cohort lifespan neuroscience research.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Brain-Environment Alignment during Movie Watching Predicts Cognitive-Affective Function in Adulthood 98%
- Hub architecture of the human structural connectome: Links to aging and processing speed 97%
- A set of functionally-defined brain regions with improved representation of the subcortex and cerebellum 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Age-dependent changes in the dynamic functional organization of the brain at rest - a cross - cultural replication approach 98%
- Age differences in the functional architecture of the human brain 98%
- Whole-brain connectivity during encoding: age-related differences and associations with cognitive and brain structural decline 98%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dynamic network features of functional and structural brain networks support visual working memory in aging adults 97%
- When Age Tips the Balance: a Dual Mechanism Affecting Hemispheric Specialization for Language 97%
- Brain-wide functional connectome analysis of 40,000 individuals reveals brain networks that show aging effects in older adults 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Motion Sensitivity and Predictive Utility of Different Estimates of Inter-regional Functional Coupling in Resting-state Functional MRI. 96%
- Test-Retest Reliability of Dynamic Functional Connectivity Parameters for a Two-State Model 96%
- Probing the association between resting state brain network dynamics and psychological resilience 96%
"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.