ArticleNeuroImage2019
Exploring individual and group differences in latent brain networks using cross-validated simultaneous component analysis.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in evaluating antidepressant treatment efficacy: a review of recent evidence (2021-2026).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Longitudinal stability and change in time-frequency measures from an oddball task during adolescence and early adulthood.Psychophysiology · 2023Article
- Multi-Subject Analysis for Brain Developmental Patterns Discovery via Tensor Decomposition of MEG Data.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Tracing Evolving Networks Using Tensor Factorizations vs. ICA-Based Approaches.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.