Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31319181›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Exploring individual and group differences in latent brain networks using cross-validated simultaneous component analysis.

Nathaniel E Helwig, Matthew A Snodgress

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

2 authors.

Nathaniel E HelwigDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA; School of Statistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. Electronic address: helwig@umn.edu.
Matthew A SnodgressDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. Electronic address: snodg031@umn.edu.

Funding

Neural Disconnection and Errant Visual Perception in Psychotic PsychopathologyU01MH108150 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SPONHEIM, SCOTT R · 2016 to 2021
$5.0M
Perceptual Mechanisms of Visual Hallucinations and Illusions in PsychosisR01MH112583 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SPONHEIM, SCOTT R · 2017 to 2021
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112583NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH108150
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Component models such as PCA and ICA are often used to reduce neuroimaging data into a smaller number of components, which are thought to reflect latent brain networks. When data from multiple subjects are available, the components are typically estimated simultaneously (i.e., for all subjects combined) using either tensor ICA or group ICA. As we demonstrate in this paper, neither of these approaches is ideal if one hopes to find latent brain networks that cross-validate to new samples of data. Specifically, we note that the tensor ICA model is too rigid to capture real-world heterogeneity in the component time courses, whereas the group ICA approach is too flexible to uniquely identify latent brain networks. For multi-subject component analysis, we recommend comparing a hierarchy of simultaneous component analysis (SCA) models. Our proposed model hierarchy includes a flexible variant of the SCA framework (the Parafac2 model), which is able to both (i) model heterogeneity in the component time courses, and (ii) uniquely identify latent brain networks. Furthermore, we propose cross-validation methods to tune the relevant model parameters, which reduces the potential of over-fitting the observed data. Using simulated and real data examples, we demonstrate the benefits of the proposed approach for finding credible components that reveal interpretable individual and group differences in latent brain networks.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNerve NetNeuroimagingBrain MappingComputer SimulationHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisGroup component analysisMulti-subject analysisMultiway analysisParafac2Parallel factor analysisTensor decomposition

Identifiers

PMID31319181
PMCPMC6765442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.