ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2015
Highly adaptive tests for group differences in brain functional connectivity.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian brain edge-based connectivity (BBeC): a Bayesian model for brain edge-based connectivity inference.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- DeLIVR: a deep learning approach to IV regression for testing nonlinear causal effects in transcriptome-wide association studies.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Brain connectivity alteration detection via matrix-variate differential network model.Biometrics · 2021Article
- Statistical and Machine Learning Link Selection Methods for Brain Functional Networks: Review and Comparison.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Bayesian Joint Modeling of Multiple Brain Functional Networks.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2021Article
- Bayesian modeling of dependence in brain connectivity data.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Detecting and Testing Altered Brain Connectivity Networks with K-partite Network Topology.Computational statistics & data analysis · 2020Article
- Integrative Bayesian analysis of brain functional networks incorporating anatomical knowledge.NeuroImage · 2018Article
- Neuroaging through the Lens of the Resting State Networks.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Adaptive testing for multiple traits in a proportional odds model with applications to detect SNP-brain network associations.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- Alzheimer Classification Using a Minimum Spanning Tree of High-Order Functional Network on fMRI Dataset.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Article
- Differential Effects of Brain Disorders on Structural and Functional Connectivity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2016Article
- A Study Over Brain Connectivity Network of Parkinson's Patients, Using Nonparametric Bayesian Model.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and other technologies have been offering evidence and insights showing that altered brain functional networks are associated with neurological illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease. Exploring brain networks of clinical populations compared to those of controls would be a key inquiry to reveal underlying neurological processes related to such illnesses. For such a purpose, group-level inference is a necessary first step in order to establish whether there are any genuinely disrupted brain subnetworks. Such an analysis is also challenging due to the high dimensionality of the parameters in a network model and high noise levels in neuroimaging data. We are still in the early stage of method development as highlighted by Varoquaux and Craddock (2013) that "there is currently no unique solution, but a spectrum of related methods and analytical strategies" to learn and compare brain connectivity. In practice the important issue of how to choose several critical parameters in estimating a network, such as what association measure to use and what is the sparsity of the estimated network, has not been carefully addressed, largely because the answers are unknown yet. For example, even though the choice of tuning parameters in model estimation has been extensively discussed in the literature, as to be shown here, an optimal choice of a parameter for network estimation may not be optimal in the current context of hypothesis testing. Arbitrarily choosing or mis-specifying such parameters may lead to extremely low-powered tests. Here we develop highly adaptive tests to detect group differences in brain connectivity while accounting for unknown optimal choices of some tuning parameters. The proposed tests combine statistical evidence against a null hypothesis from multiple sources across a range of plausible tuning parameter values reflecting uncertainty with the unknown truth. These highly adaptive tests are not only easy to use, but also high-powered robustly across various scenarios. The usage and advantages of these novel tests are demonstrated on an Alzheimer's disease dataset and simulated data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.