Unraveling the molecular relevance of brain phenotypes: A comparative analysis of null models and test statistics

•Competitive null models may yield false positives from co-expression.•Self-contained null models may yield false positives from bimodal correlations.•Test statistics interact differently with two types of null models.•Supplementary analyses with various configurations support the findings. Correlating transcriptional profiles with imaging-derived phenotypes has the potential to reveal possible molecular architectures associated with cognitive functions, brain development and disorders. Competitive null models built by resampling genes and self-contained null models built by spinning brain regions, along with varying test statistics, have been used to determine the significance of transcriptional associations. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of their performance in imaging transcriptomics analyses. Here, we evaluated the performance of eight different test statistics (mean, mean absolute value, mean squared value, max mean, median, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS), Weighted KS and the number of significant correlations) in both competitive null models and self-contained null models. Simulated brain maps (n = 1,000) and gene sets (n = 500) were used to calculate the probability of significance (Psig) for each statistical test. Our results suggested that competitive null models may result in false positive results driven by co-expression within gene sets. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the self-contained null models may fail to account for distribution characteristics (e.g., bimodality) of correlations between all available genes and brain phenotypes, leading to false positives. These two confounding factors interacted differently with test statistics, resulting in varying outcomes. Specifically, the sign-sensitive test statistics (i.e., mean, median, KS, Weighted KS) were influenced by co-expression bias in the competitive null models, while median and sign-insensitive test statistics were sensitive to the bimodality bias in the self-contained null models. Additionally, KS-based statistics produced conservative results in the self-contained null models, which increased the risk of false negatives. Comprehensive supplementary analyses with various configurations, including realistic scenarios, supported the results. These findings suggest utilizing sign-insensitive test statistics such as mean absolute value, max mean in the competitive null models and the mean as the test statistic for the self-contained null models. Additionally, adopting the co