Back

Multiscale structural MRI differences among collegiate American football players, cross-country runners, and non-athletes

Guchait, A.; Chen, C.-Y.; Muggleton, N. G.

2026-10-07 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.10.01.756138 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Structural differences observed in collision-sport athletes may reflect repetitive head-impact exposure, broader effects of athletic training, or pre-existing individual variation, making inclusion of a non-collision athlete group important for interpretation of any differences seen. Here, structural T1-weighted MRI data from 17 collegiate American football players, 16 cross-country runners, and 9 non-athletes were analyzed using FSL voxel-based morphometry (VBM), FIRST subcortical volumetry and vertex-wise shape analysis, and FAST whole-brain tissue segmentation. Spatial inference used permutation testing with threshold-free cluster enhancement and family-wise error correction, while scalar analyses used multiplicity-corrected procedures. FAST-derived absolute tissue volumes were also examined in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for FreeSurfer estimated total intracranial volume (eTIV). VBM showed recurrent brainstem-centered differences, with non-athletes showing greater local gray matter measures than both athlete groups, whereas football players showed greater brainstem measures than runners. FIRST vertex-wise analysis identified corrected differences involving the brainstem and selected subcortical structures, while no total FIRST structure volume survived false discovery rate correction. Unadjusted FAST analysis identified a CSF group effect, F(2, 24.38) = 11.46, p < .001, q = .001. After eTIV adjustment, the CSF group effect remained, F(2, 38) = 14.30, q < .001, and a white matter group effect was also identified, F(2, 38) = 9.59, q < .001; gray matter and total segmented tissue did not show corrected adjusted effects. These findings indicate that structural variation depends on anatomical scale, comparison group, and head-size adjustment and cannot be attributed uniquely to collision-sport exposure.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.