ArticleBrain structure & function2024
Can structure predict function at individual level in the human connectome?
Article in Brain structure & function, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-individual alignment of multimodal brain networks with anatomical constraints.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Predicting an individual's functional connectivity from their structural connectome: Evaluation of evidence, recommendations, and future prospects.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Group-common and individual-specific effects of structure-function coupling in human brain networks with graph neural networks.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Individualized structure-function coupling reveals behavioral signatures in the adolescent brain.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
Several studies predicting Functional Connectivity (FC) from Structural Connectivity (SC) at individual level have been published in recent years, each promising increased performance and utility. We investigated three of these studies, analyzing whether the results truly represent a meaningful individual-level mapping from SC to FC. Using data from the Human Connectome Project shared accross the three studies, we constructed a predictor by averaging FC of training data and analyzed its performance in the same way. In each case, we found that group average FC is an equivalent or better predictor of individual FC than the predictive models in terms of raw prediction performance. Furthermore, we showed that additional analyses performed by the authors of the three studies, in which they attempt to show that their predicted FC has value beyond raw prediction performance, could also be reproduced using the group average FC predictor. This makes it unclear whether any of the three methods represent a meaningful individual-level predictive model. We conclude that either the methods are not appropriate for the data, that the sample size is too small, or that the data does not contain sufficient information to learn a mapping from SC to FC. We advise future individual-level studies to explicitly report results in comparison to the performance of the group average, and carefully demonstrate that their predictions contain meaningful individual-level information. Finally, we believe that investigating alternatives for the construction of SC and FC may improve the chances of developing a meaningful individual-level mapping from SC to FC.
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.