ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2025
Graph Neural Network Learning on the Pediatric Structural Connectome.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSex classification is a major benchmark of previous work in learning on the structural connectome, a naturally occurring brain graph that has proven useful for studying cognitive function and impairment. While graph neural networks (GNNs), specifically graph convolutional networks (GCNs), have gained popularity lately for their effectiveness in learning on graph data, achieving strong performance in adult sex classification tasks, their application to pediatric populations remains unexplored. We seek to characterize the capacity for GNN models to learn connectomic patterns on pediatric data through an exploration of training techniques and architectural design choices.
methodsTwo datasets comprising an adult BRIGHT dataset (N = 147 Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors and N = 162 age similar controls) and a pediatric Human Connectome Project in Development (HCP-D) dataset (N = 135 healthy subjects) were utilized. Two GNN models (GCN simple and GCN residual), a deep neural network (multi-layer perceptron), and two standard machine learning models (random forest and support vector machine) were trained. Architecture exploration experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of network depth, pooling techniques, and skip connections on the ability of GNN models to capture connectomic patterns. Models were assessed across a range of metrics including accuracy, AUC score, and adversarial robustness.
resultsGNNs outperformed other models across both populations. Notably, adult GNN models achieved 85.1% accuracy in sex classification on unseen adult participants, consistent with prior studies. The extension of the adult models to the pediatric dataset and training on the smaller pediatric dataset were sub-optimal in their performance. Using adult data to augment pediatric models, the best GNN achieved comparable accuracy across unseen pediatric (83.0%) and adult (81.3%) participants. Adversarial sensitivity experiments showed that the simple GCN remained the most robust to perturbations, followed by the multi-layer perceptron and the residual GCN.
conclusionsThese findings underscore the potential of GNNs in advancing our understanding of sex-specific neurological development and disorders and highlight the importance of data augmentation in overcoming challenges associated with small pediatric datasets. Further, they highlight relevant tradeoffs in the design landscape of connectomic GNNs. For example, while the simpler GNN model tested exhibits marginally worse accuracy and AUC scores in comparison to the more complex residual GNN, it demonstrates a higher degree of adversarial robustness.
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.