Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The goal of this study was to examine the nature of the relationship between a number of close friends and mental health, cognition and brain structure. In particular, the authors were interested in any potential non-linear relationships between a number of close friends and various measures (neurocognition, brain structure).
Strengths
The sample sizes are very large (total size > 23,000) across two datasets.
There are a wide range of measures in the ABCD dataset -- mental health, cognition and brain data.
There were two independent datasets and the results were broadly similar across datasets.
The longitudinal aspect (2-year follow up) to the data is also a strength, as is the use of cross-lagged panel models.
The use of the two-lines test -- formally testing a non-linear relationship among variables -- is a notable strength (many studies only test using a quadratic equation, which does not necessarily mean that any relationship is significantly non-linear).
We thank the reviewer for endorsing our effort to use two extensive and independent datasets, as well as various statistical methods, to examine the nonlinear association between the number of close friends and mental health, cognition and bran structure.
Weaknesses
The study is associational and causal relations cannot be determined (the authors' themselves are clear on this point).
We agree with the Reviewer’s comment that as an association study, no causal conclusion should be made in this study, which we have clearly stated as a limitation in the Discussion (see Lines 360-364, Page 18).
The measures in the two datasets were not identical, precluding a direct out-of-sample validation test.
We agree with the Reviewer that the social network dataset is not a direct out-of-sample validation as the measures of mental health and cognition are not identical due to the data limitation. To avoid repetition, we have answered this question in detail in Page 14 in the response letter.
The depth of the information about friend relationships in the ABCD study was limited. The number of close friends was recorded, but not the quality of those relationships.
We agree with the Reviewer that the measure of close friendship in the ABCD study is simple. It is essential to incorporate friendship quality in future studies. We have discussed this limitation in the manuscript.
“Third, the quality of close friendships was not considered in the ABCD study. However, reciprocal degree is an indirect measure of friendship quality, which was found to be linearly associated with well-being and nonlinearly related to the GPA in the social network dataset. It has been reported that the relationship between having more friends and fewer depressive symptoms in adolescence is mediated by a sense of belonging (Ueno, 2005). Although current findings on the relative importance of friendship quantity and quality are inconsistent (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Platt et al., 2014), it is essential for future studies to incorporate measures of close friendship quality and to test the potential interaction between quantity and quality.” (Lines 372-380, Page 19)
To the extent that the authors were attempting to show relations among variables - and not causal associations - the authors have achieved their aims. An impact of these results lies in the link between 'Dunbar's number' of close relationships and neurocognitive measures, supporting the link between social relationships and brain and cognition in humans. The brain data in ABCD were very rich and notably allowed the authors to investigate neurotransmitter density. This is not a weakness of the study per se but it is notable that the effect sizes are quite small (although highly significant given the large sample sizes).
We agree with the Reviewer that the large sample size derives low P-values for even small effect sizes. Please refer to the detailed reply in Pages 2-3 in the response letter.
