ArticleNeuroImage2022
A hierarchical Bayesian model to find brain-behaviour associations in incomplete data sets.
Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- eBEfree: Combining Psychoeducation, Mindfulness, and Self-Compassion in an App-Based Psychological Intervention to Manage Binge-Eating Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025Trial
- A Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model for developing a treatment benefit index using mixed types of outcomes.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Improving Individualized Treatment Decisions: A Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model for Developing a Treatment Benefit Index using Mixed Types of Outcomes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) and its regularised versions have been widely used in the neuroimaging community to uncover multivariate associations between two data modalities (e.g., brain imaging and behaviour). However, these methods have inherent limitations: (1) statistical inferences about the associations are often not robust; (2) the associations within each data modality are not modelled; (3) missing values need to be imputed or removed. Group Factor Analysis (GFA) is a hierarchical model that addresses the first two limitations by providing Bayesian inference and modelling modality-specific associations. Here, we propose an extension of GFA that handles missing data, and highlight that GFA can be used as a predictive model. We applied GFA to synthetic and real data consisting of brain connectivity and non-imaging measures from the Human Connectome Project (HCP). In synthetic data, GFA uncovered the underlying shared and specific factors and predicted correctly the non-observed data modalities in complete and incomplete data sets. In the HCP data, we identified four relevant shared factors, capturing associations between mood, alcohol and drug use, cognition, demographics and psychopathological measures and the default mode, frontoparietal control, dorsal and ventral networks and insula, as well as two factors describing associations within brain connectivity. In addition, GFA predicted a set of non-imaging measures from brain connectivity. These findings were consistent in complete and incomplete data sets, and replicated previous findings in the literature. GFA is a promising tool that can be used to uncover associations between and within multiple data modalities in benchmark datasets (such as, HCP), and easily extended to more complex models to solve more challenging tasks.
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.