Replicable dynamic functional connectivity and cognitive correlates of cerebral small vessel disease in the Hamburg City Health Study
Functional MRI brain state occupancy in the presence of cerebral small vessel disease -- a pre-registered replication analysis of the Hamburg City Health Study
Recommendation: posted 01 February 2024, validated 05 February 2024
McIntosh, R. (2024) Replicable dynamic functional connectivity and cognitive correlates of cerebral small vessel disease in the Hamburg City Health Study. Peer Community in Registered Reports, 100576. 10.24072/pci.rr.100576
This is a stage 2 based on:
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Brain and Neuroscience Advances
- Imaging Neuroscience
- NeuroImage: Reports
- Peer Community Journal
- Royal Society Open Science
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #1
Version of the report: v2.0.1
Author's Reply, 24 Jan 2024
Decision by Robert McIntosh, posted 09 Jan 2024, validated 09 Jan 2024
Thank you for submitting your Stage 2 Registered Report. The manuscript has been assessed by one of the original (Stage 1) reviewers, who has provided some insightful comments, to which you should respond with appropriate revisions (or rebuttals).
Whilst you should do your best to fully consider reviewer comments, you should not change your Stage 1 material without further consultation, and you are not obliged to follow reviewer suggestions for additional exploratory analyses at this stage. That said, I think it would be acceptable to add information about achieved sample size into Figure 1.
I have been unable to obtain comments from a second reviewer and, given the time already elapsed, have decided not to wait any longer. I append some comments of my own, though these are more focused on RR requirements than on the specific scientific topic.
First, you have removed from the Stage 1 manuscript your previous pilot analysis, and also moved the timeline section (describing Stage 1 state of knowledge of the data) to the end of the manuscript. The timeline section should be reinstated within the Methods for correspondence with the approved Stage 1 plan. If you wish to remove the pilot analysis from the Stage 2 manuscript, you should explain your reasoning in your response, so that it can be evaluated, and you should at least add a footnote to the Stage 2 Methods to inform the reader that a pilot analysis included at Stage 1 has been omitted for brevity but can be found in the archived Stage 1 manuscript, providing a link to that document.
In passing, I note two very minor typographical/stylistic points: (1) please regularise 'subjects' to 'participants'; (2) there seems to be a word or two missing from the following: "network activation profiles were computed for brain states estimated Schaefer parcellations..."