% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Ooi:1044428,
author = {Ooi, Leon Qi Rong and Orban, Csaba and Zhang, Shaoshi and
Nichols, Thomas E. and Tan, Trevor Wei Kiat and Kong, Ru and
Marek, Scott and Dosenbach, Nico U. F. and Laumann, Timothy
O. and Gordon, Evan M. and Yap, Kwong Hsia and Ji, Fang and
Chong, Joanna Su Xian and Chen, Christopher and An, Lijun
and Franzmeier, Nicolai and Roemer-Cassiano, Sebastian N.
and Hu, Qingyu and Ren, Jianxun and Liu, Hesheng and Chopra,
Sidhant and Cocuzza, Carrisa V. and Baker, Justin T. and
Zhou, Juan Helen and Bzdok, Danilo and Eickhoff, Simon B.
and Holmes, Avram J. and Yeo, B. T. Thomas and Jack,
Clifford R.},
title = {{L}onger scans boost prediction and cut costs in brain-wide
association studies},
journal = {Nature},
volume = {644},
issn = {0028-0836},
address = {London [u.a.]},
publisher = {Nature Publ. Group},
reportid = {FZJ-2025-03189},
pages = {731–740},
year = {2025},
abstract = {A pervasive dilemma in brain-wide association studies1
(BWAS) is whether to prioritize functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) scan time or sample size. We derive
a theoretical model showing that individual-level phenotypic
prediction accuracy increases with sample size and total
scan duration (sample size × scan time per
participant). The model explains empirical prediction
accuracies well across 76 phenotypes from nine resting-fMRI
and task-fMRI datasets (R2 = 0.89), spanning diverse
scanners, acquisitions, racial groups, disorders and ages.
For scans of ≤20 min, accuracy increases linearly with
the logarithm of the total scan duration, suggesting that
sample size and scan time are initially interchangeable.
However, sample size is ultimately more important.
Nevertheless, when accounting for the overhead costs of each
participant (such as recruitment), longer scans can be
substantially cheaper than larger sample size for improving
prediction performance. To achieve high prediction
performance, 10 min scans are cost inefficient. In most
scenarios, the optimal scan time is at least 20 min. On
average, 30 min scans are the most cost-effective,
yielding $22\%$ savings over 10 min scans. Overshooting
the optimal scan time is cheaper than undershooting it, so
we recommend a scan time of at least 30 min. Compared with
resting-state whole-brain BWAS, the most cost-effective scan
time is shorter for task-fMRI and longer for
subcortical-to-whole-brain BWAS. In contrast to standard
power calculations, our results suggest that jointly
optimizing sample size and scan time can boost prediction
accuracy while cutting costs. Our empirical reference is
available online for future study design
(https://thomasyeolab.github.io/OptimalScanTimeCalculator/index.html).},
cin = {INM-7},
ddc = {500},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {5251 - Multilevel Brain Organization and Variability
(POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.1038/s41586-025-09250-1},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1044428},
}