henhaobio
Sign in

Abstract

Summary ParagraphBiomarkers of behavior and psychiatric illness for cognitive and clinical neuroscience remain out of reach1-4. Suboptimal reliability of biological measurements, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), is increasingly cited as a primary culprit for discouragingly large sample size requirements and poor reproducibility of brain-based biomarker discovery1,5-7. In response, steps are being taken towards optimizing MRI reliability and increasing sample sizes8-11, though this will not be enough. Optimizing biological measurement reliability and increasing sample sizes are necessary but insufficient steps for biomarker discovery; this focus has overlooked the other side of the equation - the reliability of clinical and cognitive assessments - which are often suboptimal or unassessed. Through a combination of simulation analysis and empirical studies using neuroimaging data, we demonstrate that the joint reliability of both biological and clinical/cognitive phenotypic measurements must be optimized in order to ensure biomarkers are reproducible and accurate. Even with best-case scenario high reliability neuroimaging measurements and large sample sizes, we show that suboptimal reliability of phenotypic data (i.e., clinical diagnosis, behavioral and cognitive measurements) will continue to impede meaningful biomarker discovery for the field. Improving reliability through development of novel assessments of phenotypic variation is needed, but it is not the sole solution. We emphasize the potential to improve the reliability of established phenotypic methods through aggregation across multiple raters and/or measurements12-15, which is becoming increasingly feasible with recent innovations in data acquisition (e.g., web- and smart-phone-based administration, ecological momentary assessment, burst sampling, wearable devices, multimodal recordings)16-20. We demonstrate that such aggregation can achieve better biomarker discovery for a fraction of the cost engendered by large-scale samples. Although the current study has been motivated by ongoing developments in neuroimaging, the prioritization of reliable phenotyping will revolutionize neurobiological and clinical endeavors that are focused on brain and behavior.

Abstract summary

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 18 Oct 2026 · from the abstract · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Simulations and neuroimaging analyses argue that unreliable clinical and cognitive phenotypes, not only noisy fMRI, cap biomarker discovery; aggregating across raters or repeated measures beats enlarging samples.

Work on rescuing brain-based biomarkers has concentrated on improving MRI reliability and recruiting larger cohorts, while the reliability of the diagnoses and cognitive tests on the other side of the association is often poor or never measured. Treating reliability as a joint property of both sides changes where a study should spend its budget.

Key results

  1. SuggestedBiomarker reproducibility depends on the joint reliability of the biological and the phenotypic measurement, so even best-case imaging reliability combined with large samples still leaves discovery limited by unreliable clinical and cognitive assessments.

    Argued from simulation analysis together with empirical analyses of neuroimaging data; the abstract reports no reliability coefficients, effect sizes or sample sizes for either arm. · Abstract

  2. SuggestedAggregating existing phenotypic assessments across multiple raters or repeated measurements raises their reliability enough to improve biomarker discovery at a fraction of the cost of scaling up the sample.

    Presented as a demonstrated alternative to large-scale recruitment, enabled by web, smartphone, ecological momentary assessment, burst sampling and wearable acquisition; no cost figures or reliability gains are quoted. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Simulation of brain-phenotype association studies in which the reliability of both the biological measure and the clinical/cognitive phenotype is varied, combined with empirical analyses of neuroimaging data; aggregation across raters and repeated measurements is assessed as an alternative to increasing sample size.

  • simulated biomarker-discovery studies spanning levels of biological and phenotypic reliability
  • empirical neuroimaging data used to test the reliability argument · human
Methods & tools
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
Limitations (2)
  • The argument rests on simulations plus unnamed neuroimaging analyses; no cohorts, reliability coefficients, effect sizes or sample sizes are reported, so the quantitative claims cannot be checked here. · noted in this summary
  • The cost advantage of aggregating raters and repeated measures over recruiting a larger sample is asserted without the cost assumptions behind it being stated. · noted in this summary

Read this if you plan brain-behaviour biomarker studies and must choose between recruiting more participants and measuring each phenotype more reliably.

Citations
63

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.