Certainly

Most people use MID contrasts (eg Big Win > Neut), which would be less reliable than any of these estimates.

I'm also surprised by how low the PET reliability is, but I'm less familiar with that literature.

Thanks Nicola! Given that they're looking at activation relative to an implicit baseline, and not a contrast, the ICC here is around what I would expect. Certainly longer time between measurements lowers reliability in many of the adolescent samples. Harder to say if there are age effects.

Lol thanks!!!

Also, I will be at #SRP this week if anyone wants to chat!

Current projects in the lab include longitudinal neuroimaging of substance use at different time-scales, family-based studies of casual and genetic effects, and the development of new ML models for task fMRI. This is a funded position with up to 3 years of funding available.

Thanks! I was able to create an educator account on datacamp, which lets me give trainees access for free if then enroll in my 'class'. So far it looks like a useful supplement, particularly for programming concepts that might be new

For sure. I guess my point is that a generative epistatic model with uncentered effects is equivalent to a centered model with large additive effects with the means added in after the data are generated. So the increasing additive effects you're seeing at higher MAF are expected.