Study design features that improve effect sizes in cross-sectional and longitudinal brain-wide association studies

Brain-wide association studies (BWAS) are a fundamental tool in discovering brain-behavior associations. Several recent studies showed that thousands of study participants are required to improve the replicability of BWAS because actual effect sizes are much smaller than those reported in smaller studies. Here, we perform analyses and meta-analyses of a robust effect size index (RESI) using 63 longitudinal and cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging studies from the Lifespan Brain Chart Consortium (77,695 total scans) to demonstrate that optimizing study design is critical for improving standardized effect sizes and replicability in BWAS. A meta-analysis of brain volume associations with age indicates that BWAS with larger covariate variance have larger effect size estimates and that the longitudinal studies we examined have systematically larger standardized effect sizes than cross-sectional studies. We propose a cross-sectional RESI to adjust for the systematic difference in effect sizes between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that allows investigators to quantify the benefit of conducting their study longitudinally. Analyzing age effects on global and regional brain measures from the United Kingdom Biobank and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we show that modifying longitudinal study design through sampling schemes to increase between-subject variability and adding a single additional longitudinal measurement per subject can improve effect sizes. However, evaluating these longitudinal sampling schemes on cognitive, psychopathology, and demographic associations with structural and functional brain outcome measures in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development dataset shows that commonly used longitudinal models can, counterintuitively, reduce effect sizes. We demonstrate that the benefit of conducting longitudinal studies depends on the strengths of the between- and within-subject associations of the brain and non-brain measures. Explicitly modeling between- and within-subject effects avoids conflating the effects and allows optimizing effect sizes for them separately. These findings underscore the importance of considering study design features to improve the replicability of BWAS.

Permutation Tests for General Dependent Truncation

Truncated survival data arise when the event time is observed only if it falls within a subject-specific region, known as the truncation set. Left-truncated data arise when there is delayed entry into a study, such that subjects are included only if their event time exceeds some other time. Quasi-independence of truncation and failure refers to factorization of their joint density in the observable region. Under quasi-independence, standard methods for survival data such as the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression can be applied after simple adjustments to the risk sets. Unlike the requisite assumption of independent censoring, quasi-independence can be tested, e.g., using a conditional Kendall's tau test. Current methods for testing for quasi-independence are powerful for monotone alternatives. Nonetheless, it is essential to detect any kind of deviation from quasi-independence so as not to report a biased Kaplan-Meier estimator or regression effect, which would arise from applying the simple risk set adjustment when dependence holds. Nonparametric, minimum p-value tests that are powerful against non-monotone alternatives are developed to offer protection against erroneous assumptions of quasi-independence. The use of conditional and unconditional methods of permutation for evaluation of the proposed tests are investigated in simulation studies. The proposed tests are applied to a study on the cognitive and functional decline in aging.