ArticleHuman brain mapping2024
Reliability of dynamic causal modelling of resting-state magnetoencephalography.
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.
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.
- Magnetoencephalography in human neuroscience research: planning, piloting, implementation and quality assurance.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- Alzheimer's disease and memantine effects on NMDA-receptor blockade: non-invasive in vivo insights from magnetoencephalography.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Neurophysiological Progression in Alzheimer's Disease: Insights From Dynamic Causal Modelling of Longitudinal Magnetoencephalography.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Reliability of dynamic causal modelling of resting-state magnetoencephalography.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Multiscale parcellation of dynamic causal models of the 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
16 authors.
Funding
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
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.