ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2022
Identification of individual subjects based on neuroanatomical measures obtained 7 years earlier.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Interactions between Maintenance of Cerebral Cortex Thickness and Physical Activity from an Individual Person Micro-Longitudinal Perspective and Implications for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Identification of individual subjects based on neuroanatomical measures obtained 7 years earlier.The European journal of 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analysed a dataset comprising 118 subjects who were scanned three times (at baseline, 1-year follow-up, and 7-year follow-up) using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over the course of 7 years. We aimed to examine whether it is possible to identify individual subjects based on a restricted number of neuroanatomical features measured 7 years previously. We used FreeSurfer to compute 15 standard brain measures (total intracranial volume [ICV], total cortical thickness [CT], total cortical surface area [CA], cortical grey matter [CoGM], cerebral white matter [CeWM], cerebellar cortex [CBGM], cerebellar white matter [CBWM], subcortical volumes [thalamus, putamen, pallidum, caudatus, hippocampus, amygdala and accumbens] and brain stem volume). We used linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest machine learning (RF) and a newly developed rule-based identification approach (RBIA) for the identification process. Using RBIA, different sets of neuroanatomical features (ranging from 2 to 14) obtained at baseline were combined by if-then rules and compared to the same set of neuroanatomical features derived from the 7-year follow-up measurement. We achieved excellent identification results with LDA, while the identification results for RF were very good but not perfect. The RBIA produced the best results, achieving perfect participant identification for some four-feature sets. The identification results improved substantially when using larger feature sets, with 14 neuroanatomical features providing perfect identification. Thus, this study shows again that the human brain is highly individual in terms of neuroanatomical features. These results are discussed in the context of the current literature on brain plasticity and the scientific attempts to develop brain-fingerprinting techniques.
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.