Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30127711›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2018

Classification and Prediction of Brain Disorders Using Functional Connectivity: Promising but Challenging.

Yuhui Du, Zening Fu, Vince D Calhoun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 151 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
151citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

151 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. [Classification of systemic lupus erythematosus resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data based on the end-to-end model].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

91 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yuhui DuThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Zening FuThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Vince D CalhounThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, United States.

Funding

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Treatment of Auditory Verbal HalluciP20GM103472 · NIGMS · THE MIND RESEARCH NETWORK · PI ABBOTT, CHRISTOPHER C · 2012 to 2017
$14.3M
NEURAL MECHANISMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIAP20RR021938 · NCRR · THE MIND RESEARCH NETWORK · PI HANLON, FAITH MARIE · 2008 to 2011
$9.4M
Unified multivariate data-driven solutions for static and dynamic brain connectivityR01EB020407 · NIBIB · THE MIND RESEARCH NETWORK · PI ADALI, TULAY, CALHOUN, VINCE D · 2015 to 2018
$2.7M
NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR021938NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020407NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain functional imaging data, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, have been employed to reflect functional integration of the brain. Alteration in brain functional connectivity (FC) is expected to provide potential biomarkers for classifying or predicting brain disorders. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review in order to provide guidance about the available brain FC measures and typical classification strategies. We survey the state-of-the-art FC analysis methods including widely used static functional connectivity (SFC) and more recently proposed dynamic functional connectivity (DFC). Temporal correlations among regions of interest (ROIs), data-driven spatial network and functional network connectivity (FNC) are often computed to reflect SFC from different angles. SFC can be extended to DFC using a sliding-window framework, and intrinsic connectivity states along the time-varying connectivity patterns are typically extracted using clustering or decomposition approaches. We also briefly summarize window-less DFC approaches. Subsequently, we highlight various strategies for feature selection including the filter, wrapper and embedded methods. In terms of model building, we include traditional classifiers as well as more recently applied deep learning methods. Moreover, we review representative applications with remarkable classification accuracy for psychosis and mood disorders, neurodevelopmental disorder, and neurological disorders using fMRI data. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are discussed. Finally, challenges in the field are pointed out with respect to the inaccurate diagnosis labeling, the abundant number of possible features and the difficulty in validation. Some suggestions for future work are also provided.

Indexed as

biomarkerbrain disordersclassificationfMRIfunctional connectivity

Identifiers

PMID30127711
PMCPMC6088208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.