ArticleScientific reports2024
Twinned neuroimaging analysis contributes to improving the classification of young people with autism spectrum disorder.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Artificial intelligence, autism care, and health equity: a public health narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Dynamic switching between brain networks predicts creative ability.Communications biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed using comprehensive behavioral information. Neuroimaging offers additional information but lacks clinical utility for diagnosis. This study investigates whether multi-forms of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast can be used individually and in combination to produce a categorical classification of young individuals with ASD. MRI data were accessed from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE). Young participants (ages 2-30) were selected, and two group cohorts consisted of 702 participants: 351 ASD and 351 controls. Image-based classification was performed using one-channel and two-channel inputs to 3D-DenseNet deep learning networks. The models were trained and tested using tenfold cross-validation. Two-channel models were twinned with combinations of structural MRI (sMRI) maps and amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) or fractional ALFF (fALFF) maps from resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI). All models produced classification accuracy that exceeded 65.1%. The two-channel ALFF-sMRI model achieved the highest mean accuracy of 76.9% ± 2.34. The one-channel ALFF-based model alone had mean accuracy of 72% ± 3.1. This study leveraged the ABIDE dataset to produce ASD classification results that are comparable and/or exceed literature values. The deep learning approach was conducive to diverse neuroimaging inputs. Findings reveal that the ALFF-sMRI two-channel model outperformed all others.
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.