Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38989630›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2024

Reliability of dynamic causal modelling of resting-state magnetoencephalography.

Amirhossein Jafarian, Melek Karadag Assem, Ece Kocagoncu, Juliette H Lanskey, Rebecca Williams, Yun-Ju Cheng, Andrew J Quinn, Jemma Pitt, Vanessa Raymont, Stephen Lowe and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors.

Amirhossein JafarianMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9547-7941
Melek Karadag AssemMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ece KocagoncuMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Juliette H LanskeyMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Rebecca WilliamsMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Yun-Ju ChengLilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Andrew J QuinnOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jemma PittDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vanessa RaymontDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephen LoweLilly Centre for Clinical Pharmacology, Singapore, Singapore.
Krish D SinghCardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Mark WoolrichOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anna C NobreDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard N HensonMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0712-2639
Karl J FristonWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7984-8909
James B RoweMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Canada-UK Artificial Intelligence Initiative ES/T01279X/1Medical Research Council M C_UU_00030/14Medical Research Council MR/T033371/1NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge NIHR203312: BRC-1215-20014Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205103/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 220258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assesses the reliability of resting-state dynamic causal modelling (DCM) of magnetoencephalography (MEG) under conductance-based canonical microcircuit models, in terms of both posterior parameter estimates and model evidence. We use resting-state MEG data from two sessions, acquired 2 weeks apart, from a cohort with high between-subject variance arising from Alzheimer's disease. Our focus is not on the effect of disease, but on the reliability of the methods (as within-subject between-session agreement), which is crucial for future studies of disease progression and drug intervention. To assess the reliability of first-level DCMs, we compare model evidence associated with the covariance among subject-specific free energies (i.e., the 'quality' of the models) with versus without interclass correlations. We then used parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) to investigate the differences between the inferred DCM parameter probability distributions at the between subject level. Specifically, we examined the evidence for or against parameter differences (i) within-subject, within-session, and between-epochs; (ii) within-subject between-session; and (iii) within-site between-subjects, accommodating the conditional dependency among parameter estimates. We show that for data acquired close in time, and under similar circumstances, more than 95% of inferred DCM parameters are unlikely to differ, speaking to mutual predictability over sessions. Using PEB, we show a reciprocal relationship between a conventional definition of 'reliability' and the conditional dependency among inferred model parameters. Our analyses confirm the reliability and reproducibility of the conductance-based DCMs for resting-state neurophysiological data. In this respect, the implicit generative modelling is suitable for interventional and longitudinal studies of neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseMagnetoencephalographyAgedBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleModels, NeurologicalReproducibility of Resultsdynamic causal modellingmagnetoencephalographyparametric empirical Bayesreliability

Identifiers

PMID38989630
PMCPMC11237883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.