Cargando…
Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations
Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. However, multiple meta-analyses have led to considerable differences in summary effect estimations, thus failing to provide a plausible effect estimate. Here we aim at resolving this issue by providing the largest meta-analysis and systematic review so fa...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096623/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35573038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211621 |
_version_ | 1784706018618376192 |
---|---|
author | Pietschnig, Jakob Gerdesmann, Daniel Zeiler, Michael Voracek, Martin |
author_facet | Pietschnig, Jakob Gerdesmann, Daniel Zeiler, Michael Voracek, Martin |
author_sort | Pietschnig, Jakob |
collection | PubMed |
description | Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. However, multiple meta-analyses have led to considerable differences in summary effect estimations, thus failing to provide a plausible effect estimate. Here we aim at resolving this issue by providing the largest meta-analysis and systematic review so far of the brain volume and IQ association (86 studies; 454 effect sizes from k = 194 independent samples; N = 26 000+) in three cognitive ability domains (full-scale, verbal, performance IQ). By means of competing meta-analytical approaches as well as combinatorial and specification curve analyses, we show that most reasonable estimates for the brain size and IQ link yield r-values in the mid-0.20s, with the most extreme specifications yielding rs of 0.10 and 0.37. Summary effects appeared to be somewhat inflated due to selective reporting, and cross-temporally decreasing effect sizes indicated a confounding decline effect, with three quarters of the summary effect estimations according to any reasonable specification not exceeding r = 0.26, thus contrasting effect sizes were observed in some prior related, but individual, meta-analytical specifications. Brain size and IQ associations yielded r = 0.24, with the strongest effects observed for more g-loaded tests and in healthy samples that generalize across participant sex and age bands. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9096623 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90966232022-05-14 Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations Pietschnig, Jakob Gerdesmann, Daniel Zeiler, Michael Voracek, Martin R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. However, multiple meta-analyses have led to considerable differences in summary effect estimations, thus failing to provide a plausible effect estimate. Here we aim at resolving this issue by providing the largest meta-analysis and systematic review so far of the brain volume and IQ association (86 studies; 454 effect sizes from k = 194 independent samples; N = 26 000+) in three cognitive ability domains (full-scale, verbal, performance IQ). By means of competing meta-analytical approaches as well as combinatorial and specification curve analyses, we show that most reasonable estimates for the brain size and IQ link yield r-values in the mid-0.20s, with the most extreme specifications yielding rs of 0.10 and 0.37. Summary effects appeared to be somewhat inflated due to selective reporting, and cross-temporally decreasing effect sizes indicated a confounding decline effect, with three quarters of the summary effect estimations according to any reasonable specification not exceeding r = 0.26, thus contrasting effect sizes were observed in some prior related, but individual, meta-analytical specifications. Brain size and IQ associations yielded r = 0.24, with the strongest effects observed for more g-loaded tests and in healthy samples that generalize across participant sex and age bands. The Royal Society 2022-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9096623/ /pubmed/35573038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211621 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Pietschnig, Jakob Gerdesmann, Daniel Zeiler, Michael Voracek, Martin Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title | Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title_full | Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title_fullStr | Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title_full_unstemmed | Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title_short | Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations |
title_sort | of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and iq associations |
topic | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096623/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35573038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211621 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pietschnigjakob ofdifferingmethodsdisputedestimatesanddiscordantinterpretationsthemetaanalyticalmultiverseofbrainvolumeandiqassociations AT gerdesmanndaniel ofdifferingmethodsdisputedestimatesanddiscordantinterpretationsthemetaanalyticalmultiverseofbrainvolumeandiqassociations AT zeilermichael ofdifferingmethodsdisputedestimatesanddiscordantinterpretationsthemetaanalyticalmultiverseofbrainvolumeandiqassociations AT voracekmartin ofdifferingmethodsdisputedestimatesanddiscordantinterpretationsthemetaanalyticalmultiverseofbrainvolumeandiqassociations |