ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Efficacy of functional connectome fingerprinting using tangent-space brain networks.
Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- Reconstructing brain causal dynamics for subject and task fingerprints using fMRI time-series data.Health information science and systems · 2025Article
- Salience network segregation and symptom profiles in psychosis risk subgroups among youth and early adults.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional connectomes (FCs) are estimations of brain region interaction derived from brain activity, often obtained from functional magnetic resonance imaging recordings. Quantifying the distance between FCs is important for understanding the relation between behavior, disorders, disease, and changes in connectivity. Recently, tangent space projections, which account for the curvature of the mathematical space of FCs, have been proposed for calculating FC distances. We compare the efficacy of this approach relative to the traditional method in the context of subject identification using the Midnight Scan Club dataset in order to study resting-state and task-based subject discriminability. The tangent space method is found to universally outperform the traditional method. We also focus on the subject identification efficacy of subnetworks. Certain subnetworks are found to outperform others, a dichotomy that largely follows the "control" and "processing" categorization of resting-state networks, and relates subnetwork flexibility with subject discriminability. Identification efficacy is also modulated by tasks, though certain subnetworks appear task independent. The uniquely long recordings of the dataset also allow for explorations of resource requirements for effective subject identification. The tangent space method is found to universally require less data, making it well suited when only short recordings are available.
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.